HIV diagnoses rose again last year with 508 new cases

snowflaker

Are we rating chronic conditions now???

Alt Righter

Alt Righter wrote: »

I'll be honest, if you choose to engage in the kind of high risk behaviors that leads to Hiv, then I won't have much sympathy for you when you get infected.

What about unplanned pregnancy?

That must be equally as bad in your Book of Morals?

McCrack

The stats are worrying - there seems to be a huge increase in other STIs too if you look at the HSE National Disease Surveillance stats.

I think Prep for HIV prevention should be available for free to anybody seeking it. At the moment I believe its quite expensive to get - Its a public health issue at the end of the day.

Alt Righter

Alt Righter wrote: »

You're comparing creating a new life with spreading a lethal virus?

But sure it's the same behaviour...

HIV and unplanned pregnancy can both arise due to unprotected sex. You said you have no sympathy for anyone engaging in this behaviour.

Alt Righter wrote: »

No, we shouldn't waste money on expensive drugs.

Where will we start... chemotherapy?

McCrack

Alt Righter wrote: »

No, we shouldn't waste money on expensive drugs.

It's not a waste of money if it prevents infection of a chronic lifelong illness that appears to be on the increase.

McCrack

Alt Righter wrote: »

It enables degenerate behavior. There are FAR better uses for that money.

Is that you Bishop Cullinan? I think you have a mass to say.

McCrack

Alt Righter wrote: »

I'm Pope August Maximilian XV.

I just don't believe public money should wasted on those who think meeting strangers on Grinder and taking drugs is a good idea.

Does that exclusion belief extend to straight people meeting on Tinder, IV drug users, health/security workers or other at-risk people?

McCrack

Alt Righter wrote: »

Straight people who don't take drugs have little chance of getting the virus, maybe if a woman gets raped by a bisexual man, otherwise nope. Those who are infected through no fault of their own should receive help.

I am talking about Prep which is a Pre-exposure or preventative medication for HIV - I am not talking about treatment medications.

Are you saying it should not be provided free of charge to anybody at all or just a certain type of person/s?

At the end of the day it's a public health issue that is on the increase with a prevalence amongst men that have sex with men and I suspect a lot of people at risk don't avail of it because of its high cost. I don't know the cost of HIV treatment medications but I suspect it's not cheap either which I presume is funded like any other essential medication under the drugs payment scheme. So like vaccines that are funded by the State and preventative I think Prep should also be funded and available.

_Dara_

Re-Reginalds all over the gaff. :eek:

Dr Turk Turkelton

suicide_circus wrote: »

Nonsense. Up the bum, no harm done.

One in the fanny and your mommy's a granny.

Uosdwis R. Dewoh

Deleted User wrote: »

Bull****, people are sleeping around less now than in the last 40 odd years and have fewer sexual partners on average.

Where did you find this out? Genuine question. Do you mean less promiscuity than during the sexual revolution era of the late 60s and 70s? If so, no doubt, but overall there is still plenty of promiscuity. Prior to that sexual revolution phase, I'm assuming there was far less sexual promiscuity than there is today.

McCrack

McCrack wrote: »

I am talking about Prep which is a Pre-exposure or preventative medication for HIV - I am not talking about treatment medications.

Aren't they basically the same drug?

I mean, yes; PrEP is pro-phylactic, but I'm talking about chemistry. They're basically the same thing, surely?

Jurgen Klopp

**** sake it's great and all more treatments are available but I still would never and would take all precautions against contracting HIV

Hepatitis and MRSA aren't death sentences either but you'll take all measures to protect against getting them

Then dont forget the price of these drugs, a another global economic meltdown could easily mean a government can no longer afford to pay for these wonder drugs and then it's a hospice for you

Annasopra

McCrack wrote: »

The stats are worrying - there seems to be a huge increase in other STIs too if you look at the HSE National Disease Surveillance stats.

I think Prep for HIV prevention should be available for free to anybody seeking it. At the moment I believe its quite expensive to get - Its a public health issue at the end of the day.

About €400 a month on prescription

http://www.thejournal.ie/anti-hiv-medication-in-ireland-prep-3446022-Jun2017/

wakka12

LexieOnRale wrote: »

HIV is literally the one thing I'd prefer death over. I don't care if that's not a PC statement to make but it's how it is. I wouldn't want anything to do with anyone who had it either, it would def be a deal breaker in a relationship.

Im sorry but thats just completely ridiculous, nothing to do with PC your comment was just really ignorant. The average life span of a person with HIV is generally very near the average life span of a person without HIV. Youd seriously prefer have cystic fibrosis over HIV?Alzheimers? motor neurons?****ing brain cancer? Would you prefer have AIDS over HIV, did you even know they are different things?
It boggles my mind that you believe HIV is somehow worse than being somebody who suffers immense pain daily due to their illnesses, who dies decades younger than their peers, who spend their life in hospitals.
The ONLY reason you think youd prefer have any illness over HIV is pure ignorance. Because theres literally of billions of people with relatively mild conditions who have worse quality of life health wise than HIV positive people( who are being effectively treated for it, obviously)

Many doctors will say diabetes is a more difficult illness to live with throughout your life, just to put some perspective on it. But youd consider diabtics normal people, not all that ill. Just living with a little nuisance in life. Well thats exactly how HIV is. Its simply feared due to its horrific past and the association with slutty /dirty people, gay men prostitutes drug addicts and poor africans.

One eyed Jack

wakka12 wrote: »

Im sorry but thats just completely ridiculous, nothing to do with PC your comment was just really ignorant. The average life span of a person with HIV is generally very near the average life span of a person without HIV. Youd seriously prefer have multiple sclerosis over HIV?Alzheimers? motor neurons?****ing brain cancer? Would you prefer have AIDS over HIV, did you even know they are different things?

The ONLY reason you think youd prefer have any illness over HIV is pure ignorance. Because I can think of billions with relatively mild conditions who have worse quality of life health wise than HIV positive people

wakka you can't tell people the only reason they wouldn't prefer any other illness over HIV is ignorance when you really have no idea what their experience is either of HIV of other illnesses. That opinion in and of itself is solely and purely based upon your own ignorance, because you're making an assumption without any knowledge of the facts as to why someone would say they would prefer death over living with HIV.

Your judgement of the people you know who have relatively mild conditions which mean they have a worse quality of life health wise than people with HIV is really a judgement that's only relevant to you, and your circumstances. It's not really relevant to anyone else who says that they would be prepared to live with any other condition besides HIV.

wakka12

One eyed Jack wrote: »

wakka you can't tell people the only reason they wouldn't prefer any other illness over HIV is ignorance when you really have no idea what their experience is either of HIV of other illnesses. That opinion in and of itself is solely and purely based upon your own ignorance, because you're making an assumption without any knowledge of the facts as to why someone would say they would prefer death over living with HIV.

Your judgement of the people you know who have relatively mild conditions which mean they have a worse quality of life health wise than people with HIV is really a judgement that's only relevant to you, and your circumstances. It's not really relevant to anyone else who says that they would be prepared to live with any other condition besides HIV.

Maybe I cant, but I can be completely shocked when somebody says theyd prefer contract an illness which meant you would suffer extreme pain daily, spend your life in hospitala nd die extremely young over an illness which is easily kept at bay by simple daily medication and semi regular doctor checkups and meant you could live a long happy life with absolutely no pain or symptoms from your illness.

I am judging HIV vs other illnesses based on levels of pain endured, impact it would have on mobility/socialising/sleep, levels of medication and treatment required, which most people would also asses severity of an illness on . And going by that, HIV is a walk in the park compared to a long list of many other far worse illnesses. So I fail to see how you could think HIV is the worst illness you, or lexie, could contract other than if you were ignorant about it.

wakka12

I understand the subconscious prejudice though. I dont know why its so ingrained in our social psyches because its just completely irrational. i thought I had HIV 3 years ago, I was only 18..just starting to become sexually active with other guys. I thought my life was over, i got so upset and terrified about it , too scared ot even go and get the test because I was so sure I have it. Turned out the worry was for nothing .I remember telling the nurse I never wanted to have sex again and she said dont be silly and patted me on the arm. It was an incredibly traumatic experience. I researched it and its really not that bad. I would absolutely hate to have it, for practical reasons but also the shame. I could never tell anyone because of the judgement. I know that if the social stigma and prejudice surrounding HIV, which is completely irrational, it would have been a much less terrifying expereicne for me and other young gay men.

And thats not to say gay men should not be cautious and very knowledgable about STds and always practice safe sex.

Ursus Horribilis

I hope HIV continues to be a walk in the park into the future. It's bloody fantastic that there's medication out there now for people with HIV but we don't know what the long-term prognosis is for them. Will they become resistant to it? Will the virus mutate? Will it produce side effects we don't yet know about.

One eyed Jack

wakka12 wrote: »

Maybe I cant, but I can be completely shocked when somebody says theyd prefer contract an illness which meant you would suffer extreme pain daily, spend your life in hospitala nd die extremely young over an illness which is easily kept at bay by simple daily medication and semi regular doctor checkups and meant you could live a long happy life with absolutely no pain or symptoms from your illness.

I am judging HIV vs other illnesses based on levels of pain endured, impact it would have on mobility/socialising/sleep, levels of medication and treatment required, which most people would also asses severity of an illness on . And going by that, HIV is a walk in the park compared to a long list of many other far worse illnesses. So I fail to see how you could think HIV is the worst illness you, or lexie, could contract other than if you were ignorant about it.

Well I'd be familiar with a couple of the illnesses you mentioned above, and I'd be familiar with HIV, and it's on that basis that I would say I'd be more prepared to live with any other illness besides HIV. I do understand what you're saying, that you don't consider living with HIV to be something that anyone shouldn't be prepared to live with, but those are your standards. I wouldn't be prepared to live with it, and that would be my standards. It's not based on any of your assumptions about ignorance or any associations with communities in which HIV is more prevalent (you forgot blood transfusions btw), but it's solely based upon the idea that I personally wouldn't be prepared to live with HIV itself. It's a personal matter for an individuals conscience rather than something other people would assume is based upon ignorance, and that's why it's a decision that can seem irrational to other people.

Ursus Horribilis

I'm not sure I'd want to enter a relationship with someone with HIV. The reason being that unless all sex forevermore involved a condom, I'd be running the risk of being given the virus myself. I don't think I'd want to knowingly do that to myself.

wakka12

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well I'd be familiar with a couple of the illnesses you mentioned above, and I'd be familiar with HIV, and it's on that basis that I would say I'd be more prepared to live with any other illness besides HIV. I do understand what you're saying, that you don't consider living with HIV to be something that anyone shouldn't be prepared to live with, but those are your standards. I wouldn't be prepared to live with it, and that would be my standards. It's not based on any of your assumptions about ignorance or any associations with communities in which HIV is more prevalent (you forgot blood transfusions btw), but it's solely based upon the idea that I personally wouldn't be prepared to live with HIV itself. It's a personal matter for an individuals conscience rather than something other people would assume is based upon ignorance, and that's why it's a decision that can seem irrational to other people.

What do you mean you wouldnt be prepared to live with it? What would you do? I wouldnt be prepared to live with it either in so far that I would absolutely hate having it but Id get over it as its not the end of the world.

wakka12

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

I'm not sure I'd want to enter a relationship with someone with HIV. The reason being that unless all sex forevermore involved a condom, I'd be running the risk of being given the virus myself. I don't think I'd want to knowingly do that to myself.

I dont know if youre gay or not but regardless of HIV status gay men are recommended to always use condoms even if in a monogamous relationship. Due to anuses not being sanitary. And risks of contracting HIV from non anal or vaginal sex if the person has low viral load are negligible

wakka12

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

I hope HIV continues to be a walk in the park into the future. It's bloody fantastic that there's medication out there now for people with HIV but we don't know what the long-term prognosis is for them. Will they become resistant to it? Will the virus mutate? Will it produce side effects we don't yet know about.

I think the virus mutation is actually a pretty valid concern that a lot of doctors do consider. As for side effects, theres a lot of poeple who have been ont he drugs for decades without sides so its very unlikely

One eyed Jack

wakka12 wrote: »

What do you mean you wouldnt be prepared to live with it? What would you do? I wouldnt be prepared to live with it either in so far that I would absolutely hate having it but Id get over it as its not the end of the world.

I'd have thought the alternative was obvious without having to spell it out wakka tbh :pac:

I was often told too I'd get over it and there was no reason for me to refuse to allow a blood transfusion, and I'm quite aware of the potential consequences of that decision, but that's something I am prepared to live with. I couldn't live with either a blood transfusion, or HIV.

Ursus Horribilis

wakka12 wrote: »

I dont know if youre gay or not but regardless of HIV status gay men are recommended to always use condoms even if in a monogamous relationship. Due to anuses not being sanitary. And risks of contracting HIV from non anal or vaginal sex if the person has low viral load are negligible

I'm straight so the condoms issue isn't an issue here. As for the low viral load - I'm afraid I would need to know a LOT more about that, and get cast iron assurances before unprotected sex happened.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

wakka12 wrote: »

Im sorry but thats just completely ridiculous, nothing to do with PC your comment was just really ignorant. The average life span of a person with HIV is generally very near the average life span of a person without HIV. Youd seriously prefer have cystic fibrosis over HIV?Alzheimers? motor neurons?****ing brain cancer? Would you prefer have AIDS over HIV, did you even know they are different things?
It boggles my mind that you believe HIV is somehow worse than being somebody who suffers immense pain daily due to their illnesses, who dies decades younger than their peers, who spend their life in hospitals.
The ONLY reason you think youd prefer have any illness over HIV is pure ignorance. Because theres literally of billions of people with relatively mild conditions who have worse quality of life health wise than HIV positive people( who are being effectively treated for it, obviously)

Many doctors will say diabetes is a more difficult illness to live with throughout your life, just to put some perspective on it. But youd consider diabtics normal people, not all that ill. Just living with a little nuisance in life. Well thats exactly how HIV is. Its simply feared due to its horrific past and the association with slutty /dirty people, gay men prostitutes drug addicts and poor africans.

Excuse me but I'll thank you to not scold me having an opinion on a serious illness as being ignorant. It's an illness I would not be prepared to live with, and will do all I can to avoid it and people with it.

Hector Savage

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Can't describe it. It's an irrational fear. I was so morbidly curious on it I did my thesis on it and it only fuelled the fear. I have no doubt people live long and good lives with it but I couldn't think of anything worse. I know it's not rational but I'm not going to lie and say oh I wouldn't mind it'd be fine, because to me it wouldn't be.

You did a thesis on it ?
Yet you seem unable to differentiate between HIV+ and AIDS.

TerrorFirmer

Burial. wrote: »

I remember having a chat with some fella and he said if a lad has sex with over 10 women there's a very strong chance he's got herpes. I'm amazed at how some of my buddies have gotten away without catching anything as none of them carry condoms around with them. I always ask the aul doll I'm with if she's on birth control but regardless I'll always wrap up for STDs and for pregnancy.

Condoms don't protect against herpes. The only prevention against herpes, is literally abstinence.

Excuse me but I'll thank you to not scold me having an opinion on a serious illness as being ignorant. It's an illness I would not be prepared to live with, and will do all I can to avoid it and people with it.

It's your viewpoint and you're entitled to it but I do agree it's a bit weird and totally irrational. Out of all the horrific diseases that life could throw at you and a totally manageable, and broadly speaking non-debilitating illness is the one you couldn't live with? When stuff like MND exists....

It's not a competition but I completely agree that I'd gladly take HIV over any number of horrific illnesses that physically destroy people.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Hector Savage wrote: »

You did a thesis on it ?
Yet you seem unable to differentiate between HIV+ and AIDS.

I can differentiate just fine thanks.

Hector Savage

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I can differentiate just fine thanks.

What college did you do this thesis in anyway ? - and what was your degree in ?

Dravokivich

DeSarge wrote: »

This is worrying, considering that HIV transmission rates are down in other developed countries. More education needed, at schools yes, but also through publicity campaigns in colleges and in general too.

The issue isn't one of education. There's various groups of people who seek to be infected. I wonder if that's something starting to become prevelent here.

Pintman Paddy Losty

People suggesting that taxpayers should be paying to give gay men PrEP because they're either too lazy or thick to use condoms are ridiculous. Comparing AIDS to cancer is outrageous and insulting. You can't do a simple thing like wear a condom to prevent cancer. If you could you can bet everyone would do it.

That trend or foreigners making up a very significant portion of the new cases is very worrying too. There should be some sort of screening before unleashing infected people on the general populace.

Widdershins

An acquaintance of mine who lives in the UK has it. He contracted it years ago as a result of his drug problem. He seems to go for a lot of tests and monitoring and he looks like death warmed up. A sort of side effect that he has is dementia. I'd worry that he is incapable of being responsible and protecting a partner because he doesn't know what he's doing some of the time. I haven't had many partners and was never really at risk so I have no reason to worry about infection but I have to admit as irrational as it was, the times I went for testing, I was sick with worry until I got the all clear.

gmisk

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

There should be some sort of screening before unleashing infected people on the general populace.

Jesus this isn't 28 days later or the walking dead.
People need to take some personal responsibility with regards who they shag and using protection.

Martina1991

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

That trend or foreigners making up a very significant portion of the new cases is very worrying too. There should be some sort of screening before unleashing infected people on the general populace.

The cohort of people from Sub Saharan Africa and other poor regions that have come to this country may not have had sufficient sex education, access to condoms, money for treatment or may have contracted the disease from their infected mothers.

Stopping people from immigrating based on a disease status isn't fair. Where do you draw the line. Do you stop people with TB, pneumonia, Hepatitis other STDs etc too?

c_man

Don't sleep around, don't do drugs, no worries.

wakka12

Martina1991 wrote: »

The cohort of people from Sub Saharan Africa and other poor regions that have come to this country may not have had sufficient sex education, access to condoms, money for treatment or may have contracted the disease from their infected mothers.

Stopping people from immigrating based on a disease status isn't fair. Where do you draw the line. Do you stop people with TB, pneumonia, Hepatitis other STDs etc too?

I think drawing the line at HIV is fine. Its a disease that may be potentially deadly yet show no symptoms if you have it until years later when it starts to develop into AIDS. Seeing as HIV is very uncommon in ireland especially among the straight population, it makes sense to screen people coming from places where HIV is relatively common entering the country who may unknowingly spread it here.

Annasopra

Dravokivich wrote: »

The issue isn't one of education. There's various groups of people who seek to be infected. I wonder if that's something starting to become prevelent here.

Why is education not an issue?

suicide_circus

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Why is education not an issue?

It's like the often trotted out line that education is the key to reversing the obesity problem. I'm sorry but people know if they eat crap and do no exercise they will gain weight. This is as common a piece of knowledge as the sky being blue. Similarly people know that having unprotected sex carries risk. This information is everywhere all the time.

Anita Blow

Martina1991 wrote: »

The cohort of people from Sub Saharan Africa and other poor regions that have come to this country may not have had sufficient sex education, access to condoms, money for treatment or may have contracted the disease from their infected mothers.

Stopping people from immigrating based on a disease status isn't fair. Where do you draw the line. Do you stop people with TB, pneumonia, Hepatitis other STDs etc too?

It's perfectly fair when the receiving country will be expected to pay for treatment of these conditions. Countries such as New Zealand expect you to prove you will not be a burden on their health system before you are granted residency

Atoms for Peace

The 508 is a car produced by Peugeot whose slogan is "the ride of your life"; guerrilla marketing?

Annasopra

suicide_circus wrote: »

It's like the often trotted out line that education is the key to reversing the obesity problem. I'm sorry but people know if they eat crap and do no exercise they will gain weight. This is as common a piece of knowledge as the sky being blue. Similarly people know that having unprotected sex carries risk. This information is everywhere all the time.

You might think this stuff is commonly known but it really really isnt.

The evidence shows it isnt

In the general population, knowledge of HIV transmission varies considerably depending upon the mode of transmission being discussed, and the age group people belong to. More than one in two people incorrectly think that HIV can be passed from person to person through a blood transfusion in Ireland. Only 19% of respondents reported correctly that the risk of someone who is taking effective HIV treatment passing on HIV through sex is extremely low. 98% of adults correctly thought that HIV can be transmitted by sharing needles and syringes. A similar proportion correctly thought that HIV can be transmitted by a man and a woman, or a man and a man, having sex without a condom. Common myths about transmission remain to varying degrees across respondents: A 70% of people believe HIV can be transmitted through a bite C 24% of people believe HIV can be transmitted by kissing E 10% 10% of people believe HIV can be transmitted by sharing a glass B 56% of people believe HIV can be transmitted through a blood transfusion D 11% of people believe HIV can be transmitted by coughing or sneezing F 9% 9% of people believe HIV can be transmitted by sharing a public toilet seat

Young people had less correct knowledge than older people in relation to most methods of HIV transmission. For instance, 18 to 24-year olds were twice as likely than older people to think HIV can be transmitted by sharing a public toilet seat and almost a third more likely than older people to think HIV can be transmitted by coughing or sneezing. 18 – 24 year olds were also least likely to know that there are effective ways of preventing a pregnant mother with HIV from passing HIV on to her baby during pregnancy and childbirth compared with older people. 56% of young people under 24 didn’t know this compared to 40% of people over 24 years old. This study identified gaps and misconceptions in young people’s knowledge in relation to HIV transmission. Addressing this issue, however, had clear support from the whole population. There was almost universal agreement (98%) that ‘young people should be taught about HIV transmission during secondary school’. One in five (20%) 18 – 24-year old’s reported that HIV can be passed from person to person through the sharing of a public toilet seat compared to 10% of those over 24 20%. Almost one in five (19%) 18 – 24-year old’s reported that HIV can be passed from person to person through coughing or sneezing compared to 13% of those over 24 or older.


http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/27920/

Jurgen Klopp

Anita Blow wrote: »

It's perfectly fair when the receiving country will be expected to pay for treatment of these conditions. Countries such as New Zealand expect you to prove you will not be a burden on their health system before you are granted residency

Actually a significant amount rightly do

http://www.thebody.com/content/art2244.html

IvyTheTerrible

Is it really such an innocuous disease to have? There is still a lot of stigma around it. I mean, the people comparing diabetes to HIV: would it be easier to tell your employer you have HIV or diabetes?
Also, I live fairly closely with someone who has HIV and the side effects of her medication are not a walk in the park.

_Dara_

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

Is it really such an innocuous disease to have? There is still a lot of stigma around it. I mean, the people comparing diabetes to HIV: would it be easier to tell your employer you have HIV or diabetes?
Also, I live fairly closely with someone who has HIV and the side effects of her medication are not a walk in the park.

Exactly! Every chronic disease comes with symptoms and side effects, even when being successfully damped down. From the outside looking in, it can seem like plain-sailing but nobody sees the indignities.

wakka12

suicide_circus wrote: »

It's like the often trotted out line that education is the key to reversing the obesity problem. I'm sorry but people know if they eat crap and do no exercise they will gain weight. This is as common a piece of knowledge as the sky being blue. Similarly people know that having unprotected sex carries risk. This information is everywhere all the time.

People Id say are pretty aware that not using contraception means pregnancy yet its clearly shown that educating women in developing countries about family planning has helped to reduce family sizes.

Pintman Paddy Losty

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You might think this stuff is commonly known but it really really isnt.

The evidence shows it isnt

In the general population, knowledge of HIV transmission varies considerably depending upon the mode of transmission being discussed, and the age group people belong to. More than one in two people incorrectly think that HIV can be passed from person to person through a blood transfusion in Ireland. Only 19% of respondents reported correctly that the risk of someone who is taking effective HIV treatment passing on HIV through sex is extremely low. 98% of adults correctly thought that HIV can be transmitted by sharing needles and syringes. A similar proportion correctly thought that HIV can be transmitted by a man and a woman, or a man and a man, having sex without a condom. Common myths about transmission remain to varying degrees across respondents: A 70% of people believe HIV can be transmitted through a bite C 24% of people believe HIV can be transmitted by kissing E 10% 10% of people believe HIV can be transmitted by sharing a glass B 56% of people believe HIV can be transmitted through a blood transfusion D 11% of people believe HIV can be transmitted by coughing or sneezing F 9% 9% of people believe HIV can be transmitted by sharing a public toilet seat

Young people had less correct knowledge than older people in relation to most methods of HIV transmission. For instance, 18 to 24-year olds were twice as likely than older people to think HIV can be transmitted by sharing a public toilet seat and almost a third more likely than older people to think HIV can be transmitted by coughing or sneezing. 18 – 24 year olds were also least likely to know that there are effective ways of preventing a pregnant mother with HIV from passing HIV on to her baby during pregnancy and childbirth compared with older people. 56% of young people under 24 didn’t know this compared to 40% of people over 24 years old. This study identified gaps and misconceptions in young people’s knowledge in relation to HIV transmission. Addressing this issue, however, had clear support from the whole population. There was almost universal agreement (98%) that ‘young people should be taught about HIV transmission during secondary school’. One in five (20%) 18 – 24-year old’s reported that HIV can be passed from person to person through the sharing of a public toilet seat compared to 10% of those over 24 20%. Almost one in five (19%) 18 – 24-year old’s reported that HIV can be passed from person to person through coughing or sneezing compared to 13% of those over 24 or older.


http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/27920/

That shows people believe HIV is easier to contract than the reality.

It does nothing to explain why a certain segment of society (homosexuals) continue to engage in high risk sex despite clearly knowing they run the risk of contracting HIV.

It's probably down to this ridiculous narrative being put forward that HIV/AIDS is relatively harmless... even dare I say it fashionable amongst a certain cohort. This narrative shouldn't be allowed to continue. Tax payers shouldn't be subsidising this utter stupidity.

_Dara_

Well, anal sex is the way gay men have penetrative sex so their default is more high risk. Not much they can do about that unless they abstain.

Dravokivich

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/27920/

Can show me the survey or were only the results published?

When faced with multiple choice answers, young people can tend to pick what appears to be the simplest.

I've seen people react to a questionaire that told them to read the sheet before answering the questions. Then they started answering the questions, even though the end of the sheet told them not to. They felt compelled to do so, before getting to it.