Worst disease of all time

[don juan]

In the grand scheme of things, HIV/AIDS isn't a problem for the heterosexual population in the USA. If you look at the transmission rates from male to female or female to male, it is very difficult to pass on and would probably wipe itself out if not for the gay community(male to male).---not trying to blame any specific community though.

In countries where they lack education and resources to obtain sexual protection it's incredibly problematic.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[NCF145]

I think spanish flu is definitely one of the worst in our history. According to epidemiologists today, they think the spanish flu killed around 80-100 million people worldwide. There are reports of people in New York who got on the subway completely normal and literally dropped dead in the subway before they even got to their stop. The flu would cause such severe cyanosis that you couldn't tell if a person was black or white anymore. It would also impair a victim so badly that they would lay in bed next to their child/spouse/parent who had already died from the flu for days without moving them. Unfortunately, the spread of the flu was exacerbated by the US government's unwillingness to acknowledge the seriousness of the situation. The book "The Great Influenza: The Epic Story of the Deadliest Plague in History" offers great insight into the disease.

 

[jebus]

...llars

There are reports of people in New York who got on the subway completely normal and literally dropped dead in the subway before they even got to their stop.

I heard that there was this ninja who was eating at a diner. And when some dude dropped a spoon the ninja killed the whole town. My friend Mark said that he saw a ninja totally uppercut some kid just because the kid opened a window.

 

[Thundrstorm]

I heard that there was this ninja who was eating at a diner. And when some dude dropped a spoon the ninja killed the whole town. My friend Mark said that he saw a ninja totally uppercut some kid just because the kid opened a window.

You just made me snort.

Nice avater btw.

 

[angietron3000]

this reminds me of this book i read called "Killer Germs"
pretty gory stuff, excellent book tho
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0071409262/qid=1145650973/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0052825-2431962

 

[colt]

In countries where they lack education and resources to obtain sexual protection it's incredibly problematic.

Some of those countries don't want to use protection and they are involved in high-risk sexual activies.

 

[riceman04]

haww yeah im with you, i cant believe all these ppl voting for AIDS. plague was just terrifying, AIDS at least can be avoided to a large extent. ppl tend to be biased towards their own eras--AIDS for us. dunno about continuing to haunt ha, but it certainly had its day

Ok so what do you think AIDS would have done to those europeans had it erupted before people in society became socially & physically conscious about with what they had contact.

If bubonic plague/black death/etc...was so bad then it would still thrive today like AIDS despite the research attention that it is being given

 

[SpeedRacer]

i can't believe more people didn't vote for AIDS! i guess it's because the full extent of how ****ed we are isn't apparent yet...

 

[LizzyM]

Ok so what do you think AIDS would have done to those europeans had it erupted before people in society became socially & physically conscious about with what they had contact.

If bubonic plague/black death/etc...was so bad then it would still thrive today like AIDS despite the research attention that it is being given

There were deadly sexually transmitted diseases in Europe in the Middle Ages (such as syphilis) but they did not wipe out the population because it isn't easy to spread unless you are having sex with an infected partner and then another partner. The mores and lack of tranportation from one place to another would have reduced the odds that if a disease like HIV-AIDS had been introduced into Europe in the Middle Ages that it would have taken off like wildfire.

On the other hand, a disease like bubonic/pneumonic plague spread by an organism carried by rodent infested fleas can spread quickly by land and sea. Once it becomes pneumonic plague and can be spread by infected humans. No disease in the 20th century wiped out 1/3 of the population of a continent. The Black Death did.

 

[reylting]

I voted for AIDS. I believe that part of the problem is that we cannot regulate/legislate equality amongst the sexes of the world and thus we cannot control the spread of AIDS.

 

[OctoDoc]

I voted for AIDS. I believe that part of the problem is that we cannot regulate/legislate equality amongst the sexes of the world and thus we cannot control the spread of AIDS.

I don't see the connection.

 

[OctoDoc]

i can't believe more people didn't vote for AIDS! i guess it's because the full extent of how ****ed we are isn't apparent yet...

AIDS isn't a good gauge of the extent of copulation in our species, because there are multiple transmission vectors for HIV, many of which aren't sexual.

 

[NapeSpikes]

I voted for AIDS. I believe that part of the problem is that we cannot regulate/legislate equality amongst the sexes of the world and thus we cannot control the spread of AIDS.

Come again?

 

[IAMS]

I'm surprised more people didn't vote for Leprosy. This is a horrible thing that is still rampant in many impoverished areas of India, Asia and Africa. Although it is virtually painless, because the nerves degenerate, the worst part is the isolation. Anyone who is found to be a leper is completely cut off from society. They go completely ignored and abandoned, very few people will even treat them because it is contagious... the stigma is 100X worse than AIDS.

 

[dbhvt]

There were deadly sexually transmitted diseases in Europe in the Middle Ages (such as syphilis) but they did not wipe out the population because it isn't easy to spread unless you are having sex with an infected partner and then another partner. The mores and lack of tranportation from one place to another would have reduced the odds that if a disease like HIV-AIDS had been introduced into Europe in the Middle Ages that it would have taken off like wildfire.

On the other hand, a disease like bubonic/pneumonic plague spread by an organism carried by rodent infested fleas can spread quickly by land and sea. Once it becomes pneumonic plague and can be spread by infected humans. No disease in the 20th century wiped out 1/3 of the population of a continent. The Black Death did.

Ever see the film short on world population? They show a light for every x number of people and start it some terrifically long time ago. The lights build slowly and slowly, and then start expanding geographically, and building some more. Then, all of a sudden, poof, they start disappearing--the plague. No other disease has made lights disappear. Period. Untill HIV starts making lights disappear, it's just no question. (freaky, too-- noone knew what the hell was going on).

Oh, and then the lights take over and the screen explodes, but that's another issue.

 

[OctoDoc]

I'm surprised more people didn't vote for Leprosy. This is a horrible thing that is still rampant in many impoverished areas of India, Asia and Africa. Although it is virtually painless, because the nerves degenerate, the worst part is the isolation. Anyone who is found to be a leper is completely cut off from society. They go completely ignored and abandoned, very few people will even treat them because it is contagious... the stigma is 100X worse than AIDS.

Leprosy is now curable, maybe that is why?

 

[reylting]

I'll try again...

 

[reylting]

Come again?

I meant...where the societal norms dictate that women are second class citizens, the spread of AIDS is difficult to control. Meaning that women are at the mercy of whatever the men do with thier sexual health because they cannot speak up without fear of reprisal.

 

[OctoDoc]

I meant...where the societal norms dictate that women are second class citizens, the spread of AIDS is difficult to control. Meaning that women are at the mercy of whatever the men do with thier sexual health because they cannot speak up without fear of reprisal.

In societies where women are oppressed, they are generally not promiscuous (due to the constraints of social interaction). I would think that if women in these countries were as free and liberal as the men, the HIV situation would be even worse. I think the more important factors in the prevalence of HIV in these countries are socioeconomic and educational in nature.

 

[NapeSpikes]

...Meaning that women are at the mercy of whatever the men do with thier sexual health because they cannot speak up without fear of reprisal.

Ahh, gotcha, but I respectfully disagree. I don't think fear of reprisal is enough to force a woman to be promiscuous. It's her choice.

Or am I missing the boat again? What's the "being at the mercy" you speak of?

 

[reylting]

In societies where women are oppressed, they are generally not promiscuous (due to the constraints of social interaction). I would think that if women in these countries were as free and liberal as the men, the HIV situation would be even worse.

I agree with this statement.

I think the more important factors in the prevalence of HIV in these countries are socioeconomic and educational in nature.

I think that societal norms play a very important role in the spread of AIDS and I would argue that they are as equally important as socioeconomic status and education.

 

[riceman04]

There were deadly sexually transmitted diseases in Europe in the Middle Ages (such as syphilis) but they did not wipe out the population because it isn't easy to spread unless you are having sex with an infected partner and then another partner. The mores and lack of tranportation from one place to another would have reduced the odds that if a disease like HIV-AIDS had been introduced into Europe in the Middle Ages that it would have taken off like wildfire.

On the other hand, a disease like bubonic/pneumonic plague spread by an organism carried by rodent infested fleas can spread quickly by land and sea. Once it becomes pneumonic plague and can be spread by infected humans. No disease in the 20th century wiped out 1/3 of the population of a continent. The Black Death did.

but you are still only considering one of many factors in your decision of what disease you think has been the worst.
Even if AIDS does not spread like wildfire, the fact that no cure has been found makes it a dangerous disease.
And I do not think that AIDS would die out due to lack of transportation. All it takes is one infected person to have some kind of open flesh contact with another and a new person has the disease.
For its time, the bubonic plague was massive. But considering how its severity is now comparable to a very bad cold (before it transforms) suggests that it, as a disease is not that menacing after all.

I thought advancements in technology and science are supposed to close all holes...well it has closed the bubonic plague hole. Unfortunately the AIDS hole is exponentially increasing in size.

 

[reylting]

Ahh, gotcha, but I respectfully disagree. I don't think fear of reprisal is enough to force a woman to be promiscuous. It's her choice.

I didn' t mean fear of reprisal is stiopping a woman from being promiscuous, rather it prevents her from objecting to any such behaviour on the part of her mate.

 

[NapeSpikes]

I didn' t mean fear of reprisal is stiopping a woman from being promiscuous, rather it prevents her from objecting to any such behaviour on the part of her mate.

And so women, you are saying, allow promiscuity of their mate because of social norms?

Sure, it's socially acceptable for a man to ***** around, but that doesn't mean a woman has to DO that man-*****.

The spread of HIV then has more to do with these careless sex acts, not the inequality of the sexes. Each man and woman has the choice to avoid infection through this route (barring rape, etc.).

 

[dbhvt]

but you are still only considering one of many factors in your decision of what disease you think has been the worst.
Even if AIDS does not spread like wildfire, the fact that no cure has been found makes it a dangerous disease.
And I do not think that AIDS would die out due to lack of transportation. All it takes is one infected person to have some kind of open flesh contact with another and a new person has the disease.
For its time, the bubonic plague was massive. But considering how its severity is now comparable to a very bad cold (before it transforms) suggests that it, as a disease is not that menacing after all.

I thought advancements in technology and science are supposed to close all holes...well it has closed the bubonic plague hole. Unfortunately the AIDS hole is exponentially increasing in size.

There is a fairly well accepted theory that AIDS is a disease of globalization. Something about trucking routes, don't really remember anymore. I'm not saying you should believe it because of this, just know that a lot of people believe the spread of AIDS was transportation dependent.

Also, if we're looking at the worst disease of all time, I don't think it matters that during this particular time, the plague is no longer a threat.

 

[OctoDoc]

I think that societal norms play a very important role in the spread of AIDS and I would argue that they are as equally important as socioeconomic status and education.

If that is the case, then why do countries in which women are oppressed have more of a problem than countries were women are on equal status with men? If countries with oppressed women that have a dampening mechanism (as discussed above) toward the spread of HIV have a worse HIV problem than those without female oppression, doesn't that indicate that societal norms are not a major contributing factor?

 

[reylting]

And so women, you are saying, allow promiscuity of their mate because of social norms?

Yes...when women are second class citizens they have no say in matters affecting their sexual health.

Sure, it's socially acceptable for a man to ***** around, but that doesn't mean a woman has to DO that man-*****.

A woman can only reject the premise if their are laws in place that allow her to do so.

 

[sakura181]

Another rare disease thats truly awful is the Naeglera Fowleri or Acanthamoeba. You get these bugs by swimming in fresh water lakes, say Lake Michigan. The bugs penetrate your cribriform plate into your brain and you are dead within a few days. Not a damn thing anybody can do about it either.

This isn't really a disease, but I think it would be horrible to have that ridiculous urine-drinking fish from the Amazon. It's a tiny little fish that darts up your urethra, grow spiky projections to anchor itself to the urethral walls, and then lives in your urethra while feeding off your urine. Yikes.

Moral of the story: Don't piss in the Amazon River. Your peep will be on the fritz.

 

[OctoDoc]

This isn't really a disease, but I think it would be horrible to have that ridiculous urine-drinking fish from the Amazon. It's a tiny little fish that darts up your urethra, grow spiky projections to anchor itself to the urethral walls, and then lives in your urethra while feeding off your urine. Yikes.

Moral of the story: Don't piss in the Amazon River. Your peep will be on the fritz.

Or put one of those bubbling stones in aquariums at the end of your doohickey.

 

[reylting]

If that is the case, then why do countries in which women are oppressed have more of a problem than countries were women are on equal status with men?

I believe that this agrees with my point.

If countries with oppressed women that have a dampening mechanism (as discussed above) toward the spread of HIV have a worse HIV problem than those without female oppression, doesn't that indicate that societal norms are not a major contributing factor?

What countries are these?

 

[OctoDoc]

What countries are these?

Compare Nigeria with the United States. Or Kenya, or India.

 

[OctoDoc]

Socioeconomics and education are the major factors:

from http://www.handsonnetwork.org/vca/hiv-aids-faqs/#hiv10

What factors contribute to the differences in the spread of HIV/AIDS in developing countries compared with more developed countries?

There are many factors that contribute to the differences in the prevalence and spread of HIV/AIDS worldwide, including the stark contrast between developing and developed countries. Many organizations and governments have proposed reasons for these inequities, which vary by region, society, culture, and over time. Some of the ideas include a lack of proper testing for HIV/AIDS in Africa, as well as a reluctance to be tested. This is especially true in many countries where there is an enormous stigma related to being HIV-positive, making many reluctant to be tested because of the fear and shame associated with the disease.

Also, more people in developing countries may be uneducated about how HIV/AIDS is spread and how to protect against transmission. In some societies, contraception -- including condoms -- is taboo and therefore cannot help protect against HIV. Misconceptions persist in some cultures about how HIV is transmitted, including the 'virgin myth' – a belief that an HIV-positive man can be cured if he has sex with a virgin.

Another difference between developed and developing countries is access to antiretroviral drugs, especially for pregnant women to reduce the risk of transmitting HIV to their child during pregnancy, delivery, or through breastfeeding. In many developing countries, there is a severe shortage of properly trained health care workers to administer and dispense antiretroviral drugs and to educate about HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment. Also, cultural factors -- such as arranged marriage, violence against women, a lack of educational or economic opportunities for women -- can increase the spread of HIV because women cannot voluntarily abstain from sex or negotiate the use of condoms.

War and conflict also contribute to the spread of HIV/AIDS through widespread rape (used as a weapon of war in some areas), the displacement of people who have little or no access to health care or condoms, and the increase of commercial sex workers who follow soldiers. Countries embattled in civil wars or conflicts with neighboring nations often experience an increase in HIV prevalence.

 

[reylting]

Compare Nigeria with the United States. Or Kenya, or India.

In Nigeria...
"the rights of women and girls
continue to be violated with impunity, further deepening their
vulnerability to infection and stigma;"

http://www.nigeria-aids.org/eforum/MsgRead.cfm?ID=5743

Where there are issues of women rights it will be harder to control the spread of AIDS.

 

[reylting]

Socioeconomics and education are the major factors:

from http://www.handsonnetwork.org/vca/hiv-aids-faqs/#hiv10

What factors contribute to the differences in the spread of HIV/AIDS in developing countries compared with more developed countries?

There are many factors that contribute to the differences in the prevalence and spread of HIV/AIDS worldwide, including the stark contrast between developing and developed countries. Many organizations and governments have proposed reasons for these inequities, which vary by region, society, culture, and over time. Some of the ideas include a lack of proper testing for HIV/AIDS in Africa, as well as a reluctance to be tested. This is especially true in many countries where there is an enormous stigma related to being HIV-positive, making many reluctant to be tested because of the fear and shame associated with the disease.

Also, more people in developing countries may be uneducated about how HIV/AIDS is spread and how to protect against transmission. In some societies, contraception -- including condoms -- is taboo and therefore cannot help protect against HIV. Misconceptions persist in some cultures about how HIV is transmitted, including the 'virgin myth' – a belief that an HIV-positive man can be cured if he has sex with a virgin.

Another difference between developed and developing countries is access to antiretroviral drugs, especially for pregnant women to reduce the risk of transmitting HIV to their child during pregnancy, delivery, or through breastfeeding. In many developing countries, there is a severe shortage of properly trained health care workers to administer and dispense antiretroviral drugs and to educate about HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment. Also, cultural factors -- such as arranged marriage, violence against women, a lack of educational or economic opportunities for women -- can increase the spread of HIV because women cannot voluntarily abstain from sex or negotiate the use of condoms.

War and conflict also contribute to the spread of HIV/AIDS through widespread rape (used as a weapon of war in some areas), the displacement of people who have little or no access to health care or condoms, and the increase of commercial sex workers who follow soldiers. Countries embattled in civil wars or conflicts with neighboring nations often experience an increase in HIV prevalence.

I am NOT saying that Socioeconomics and education are NOT major factors, just that societal norms are also important. I am a third world country, I am speaking from experience when I say that societal norms contribute greatly to the spread of AIDS.

 

[reylting]

Socioeconomics and education are the major factors:

from http://www.handsonnetwork.org/vca/hiv-aids-faqs/#hiv10

What factors contribute to the differences in the spread of HIV/AIDS in developing countries compared with more developed countries?

There are many factors that contribute to the differences in the prevalence and spread of HIV/AIDS worldwide, including the stark contrast between developing and developed countries. Many organizations and governments have proposed reasons for these inequities, which vary by region, society, culture, and over time. Some of the ideas include a lack of proper testing for HIV/AIDS in Africa, as well as a reluctance to be tested. This is especially true in many countries where there is an enormous stigma related to being HIV-positive, making many reluctant to be tested because of the fear and shame associated with the disease.

Also, more people in developing countries may be uneducated about how HIV/AIDS is spread and how to protect against transmission. In some societies, contraception -- including condoms -- is taboo and therefore cannot help protect against HIV. Misconceptions persist in some cultures about how HIV is transmitted, including the 'virgin myth' – a belief that an HIV-positive man can be cured if he has sex with a virgin.

Another difference between developed and developing countries is access to antiretroviral drugs, especially for pregnant women to reduce the risk of transmitting HIV to their child during pregnancy, delivery, or through breastfeeding. In many developing countries, there is a severe shortage of properly trained health care workers to administer and dispense antiretroviral drugs and to educate about HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment. Also, cultural factors -- such as arranged marriage, violence against women, a lack of educational or economic opportunities for women -- can increase the spread of HIV because women cannot voluntarily abstain from sex or negotiate the use of condoms.

War and conflict also contribute to the spread of HIV/AIDS through widespread rape (used as a weapon of war in some areas), the displacement of people who have little or no access to health care or condoms, and the increase of commercial sex workers who follow soldiers. Countries embattled in civil wars or conflicts with neighboring nations often experience an increase in HIV prevalence.

I am NOT saying that Socioeconomics and education are NOT major factors, just that societal norms are also important. I am a third world country, I am speaking from experience when I say that societal norms contribute greatly to the spread of AIDS.

 

[OctoDoc]

I am NOT saying that Socioeconomics and education are NOT major factors, just that societal norms are also important. I am a third world country, I am speaking from experience when I say that societal norms contribute greatly to the spread of AIDS.

I recognize that. However, there is no mention of societal factors in the spread of HIV in those countries.

Also, the citation to which you referred also says nothing about societal factors. The closest I could find is

6. Women's Rights and Gender Equality
* Through policy, institutional and legal frameworks, develop a policy,
legislative and administrative environment in which the rights of African
women and girls, especially those living with HIV are actively promoted,
fully enjoyed and protected within and through the ratification and
domestication of international instruments such as CEDAW, the Protocol to
the African Charter on Human and People's Rights on the rights of Women in
Africa; Solemn Declaration on Gender Equality in Africa (2004);

7. Human Rights
* Create enabling environments through policy, institutional and legal
frameworks at national level that promote and protect the human rights of
those living with and affected by HIV and AIDS, and that further reduces
their vulnerability to stigma and discrimination through the enactment of
Human Rights legislation;
* Ensure that the rights of orphans and vulnerable children are promoted
and protected through the massive scaling up of efforts aimed at providing
children with the protections outlined in the Convention on the Rights of
the Child, to which all African states are signatories;

which doesn't mention oppression or societal norms or anything of the like. Absence of proof is not proof of absence (sorry, I stole that phrase from someone else on SDN), but it is curious that I can't find anything authoritative regarding a connection between societal norms and the HIV epidemic.

 

[NapeSpikes]

I am [from] a third world country, I am speaking from experience when I say that societal norms contribute greatly to the spread of AIDS.

Ohhhhhh, okay. Disregard my previous posts. If these man ****** are forcing the women to have sex with them, then yes, I agree that social norms can spread HIV.

 

[angietron3000]

Ahh, gotcha, but I respectfully disagree. I don't think fear of reprisal is enough to force a woman to be promiscuous. It's her choice.

Or am I missing the boat again? What's the "being at the mercy" you speak of?

It's not that the women are promiscuous, but there's nothing stopping their husbands from frequenting prostitues, and bringing HIV home to their wives, who are afraid to ask their mate to wear a condom.. for fear of reprisal..

http://www.medindia.net/news/view_news_main.asp?x=6733&t=19

 

[reylting]

It's not the women that are promiscuous, but there's nothing stopping their husbands from frequenting prostitues, and bringing HIV home to their wives, who are afraid to ask their mate to wear a condom.. for fear of reprisal..

http://www.medindia.net/news/view_news_main.asp?x=6733&t=19

 

[reylting]

I recognize that. However, there is no mention of societal factors in the spread of HIV in those countries.

Also, the citation to which you referred also says nothing about societal factors. The closest I could find is

6. Women's Rights and Gender Equality
* Through policy, institutional and legal frameworks, develop a policy,
legislative and administrative environment in which the rights of African
women and girls, especially those living with HIV are actively promoted,
fully enjoyed and protected within and through the ratification and
domestication of international instruments such as CEDAW, the Protocol to
the African Charter on Human and People's Rights on the rights of Women in
Africa; Solemn Declaration on Gender Equality in Africa (2004);

7. Human Rights
* Create enabling environments through policy, institutional and legal
frameworks at national level that promote and protect the human rights of
those living with and affected by HIV and AIDS, and that further reduces
their vulnerability to stigma and discrimination through the enactment of
Human Rights legislation;
* Ensure that the rights of orphans and vulnerable children are promoted
and protected through the massive scaling up of efforts aimed at providing
children with the protections outlined in the Convention on the Rights of
the Child, to which all African states are signatories;

which doesn't mention oppression or societal norms or anything of the like. Absence of proof is not proof of absence (sorry, I stole that phrase from someone else on SDN), but it is curious that I can't find anything authoritative regarding a connection between societal norms and the HIV epidemic.

Societal norms can directly contribute to gender inequality.

 

[OctoDoc]

It's not the women that are promiscuous, but there's nothing stopping their husbands from frequenting prostitues, and bringing HIV home to their wives, who are afraid to ask their mate to wear a condom.. for fear of reprisal..

http://www.medindia.net/news/view_news_main.asp?x=6733&t=19

I'm getting off track here. What I don't understand is how the situation where women get HIV from their husbands who schtupp prostitutes contribute to prevalence of the epidemic, when they are themselves not promiscuous? If that situation doesn't lend itself to the faster spread of HIV as compared to in countries where women are equal and liberal (and so go out and schtupp other people themselves), how can their being oppressed be a factor in having a larger HIV crisis than the other countries?

Maybe I'm having difficulty in articulating my puzzlement. Am I getting my question across?

 

[NapeSpikes]

It's not the women that are promiscuous, but there's nothing stopping their husbands from frequenting prostitues, and bringing HIV home to their wives, who are afraid to ask their mate to wear a condom.. for fear of reprisal..

http://www.medindia.net/news/view_news_main.asp?x=6733&t=19

Right. Again, I blame my American viewpoint (it's still not a societal norm to cheat on your wife) for my short-sightedness.

 

[OctoDoc]

Societal norms can directly contribute to gender inequality.

Yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly. But I don't see how either one is connected to the HIV epidemic.

 

[austinap]

I'd have to divide the 'worst diseases' into categories. Historically, I'd say the plague would have to be the most devastating. Quotes on the death toll have been anywhere from 30%-90% of the total population in europe. It got to the point where people wouldn't talk to their familes anymore for fear of being infected. It would also have to be one of the worst in how it was handled: one of the first measures was the required extermination of all household pets. This in turn caused the rat population to explode (the fleas on the rats were the cause), which made the epidemic just that much worse.

On a personal level, I'd say that ebola would be one of the worst things to die of, but there are quite a few diseases that I really hope I don't die of (dengue hemorrhagic fever, leprosy, etc...). However, ebola isn't much of a public health risk as it kills its host too quickly and doesn't allow for widespread transmission.

As far as future health problems, HIV would almost certainly come in at #1, mainly because of the inability to treat the disease, and the fact that that vaccination is not a feasible course of action against HIV. Since HIV specifically targets the immune system, immune response against the virus doesn't help much (in fact, the common test for HIV infection is the presence of antibodies). HIV also doesn't kill its host very quickly which helps ensure the survival of the virus. Hosts also don't show obvious symptoms much of the time, so more people become infected. Added to all of this, HIV mutates so rapidly that current treatments probably won't last that long and new methods will have to be continually developed to fight the virus.

I do have one point to argue: if HIV somehow became airborn, that would not be a good thing at all. It wouldn't act to 'eventually contain the infection.' This is true in faster-acting diseases, but as stated above people infected with HIV are asymptomatic much of the time, and they typically live for quite a while after infection (compared to, say, ebola patients). If the virus was airborne, people could become infected without knowing it, travel to some other part of the world before they know they're infected, and infect other people without direct contact. I almost guarantee that if the virus becomes airborn, 90+% of the global population will become infected within weeks or months. One of the only things we have on our side right now is that the disease is relatively hard to spread. It doesn't have a very long halflife outside of the body (~7 minutes I believe) and otherwise has a fairly low transmission rate even during 'risky' behavior. If this changes, we'll really have a problem.

 

[LizzyM]

I do have one point to argue: if HIV somehow became airborn, that would not be a good thing at all. It wouldn't act to 'eventually contain the infection.' This is true in faster-acting diseases, but as stated above people infected with HIV are asymptomatic much of the time, and they typically live for quite a while after infection (compared to, say, ebola patients). If the virus was airborne, people could become infected without knowing it, travel to some other part of the world before they know they're infected, and infect other people without direct contact. I almost guarantee that if the virus becomes airborn, 90+% of the global population will become infected within weeks or months.

Currently there is a disease that is spread by contact with droplets (airborne), and the bacterium can live outside of the body for 10 years! The infected individual can live for years before dying of the infection. It became curable in the 20th century. What is the disease? (and it hasn't infected 90% of the global population - even before a cure was discovered).

 

[Zoom-Zoom]

I think spanish flu is definitely one of the worst in our history. According to epidemiologists today, they think the spanish flu killed around 80-100 million people worldwide. There are reports of people in New York who got on the subway completely normal and literally dropped dead in the subway before they even got to their stop. The flu would cause such severe cyanosis that you couldn't tell if a person was black or white anymore. It would also impair a victim so badly that they would lay in bed next to their child/spouse/parent who had already died from the flu for days without moving them. Unfortunately, the spread of the flu was exacerbated by the US government's unwillingness to acknowledge the seriousness of the situation. The book "The Great Influenza: The Epic Story of the Deadliest Plague in History" offers great insight into the disease.

And that is why the bird flu thing is so scary. People can't seem to wrap their heads around the potential danger. Plus anyone in a position of power to make policy decisions will also be in a position of power to get their hands on a vaccine. And as for the millions of others, our "treatment" will consist of mass containment. So if you and your town happen to be shipped off to the wrong stadium and an outbreak happens there, you're all just SOL.

 

[novawildcat]

The spanish flu killed 80-100 million people in 1 year and the total population on earth in 1918 was about 1.8 billion, in other words it killed off about 5% of the earth's total population. Think of how many people would have to be infected just to kill off that many people if the flu killed only about 3-5 out of every 10 people it infected. Probably at least half of the world's population would have had to have had exposure to the flu. It is scary to think a disease could spread that fast in only 1 year.

 

[dnw826]

I don't see the connection.

I believe what is meant is the fact that women are still so oppressed in many areas, as well as economic and social repression still rampant. This has a direct impact on education of the disease, medication, and also cases of rape. I know that there is at least one region where having sex with a VERY young virgin (think 9 or under) is believed to be the "cure" to AIDS, so men rape them like crazy. Scary.

 

[dnw826]

And so women, you are saying, allow promiscuity of their mate because of social norms?

Sure, it's socially acceptable for a man to ***** around, but that doesn't mean a woman has to DO that man-*****.

The spread of HIV then has more to do with these careless sex acts, not the inequality of the sexes. Each man and woman has the choice to avoid infection through this route (barring rape, etc.).

From what I have seen and read, yes. It is allowable, justified, and even required in some societies for men to have oogles of mistresses, and prositutes are an everyday adventure. The women have no say. Unless of course you like to be beaten, stoned, have your family tortured, or yourself tortured, sold into slavery or prostitution, exiled from your religious center, exiled from your home, or killed. Think Taliban among many.

And rape is a HUGE cause of AIDS/HIV in many parts of the world. As well as congenital HIV from being borne the child of a rape or from being exposed via other sources (blood exposure, transfusion, etc.) because you live in a dirty area with almost no money or real medical help. Or is this too far from Suburbia for you to imagine?

 

[austinap]

Currently there is a disease that is spread by contact with droplets (airborne), and the bacterium can live outside of the body for 10 years! The infected individual can live for years before dying of the infection. It became curable in the 20th century. What is the disease? (and it hasn't infected 90% of the global population - even before a cure was discovered).

I'm not sure, what IS the disease? I'm guessing its some sort of a endospore forming bacteria, maybe a Clostridium? I'm sure there's some reason it hasn't spread to more of the population if it does everything you say it does. Maybe it just isn't that infectious? Maybe only a certain fraction of the population is succeptible to it?