Feds Want Routine HIV Testing For Americans

AP ^ | September 21 2006

[freekitty]

Forget about it.

[Wuli]

HIV infection can be a death sentence; even when the time of death is greatly delayed by modern medicine.

States should make it a crime to spread the HIV virus, period.

That should be based soley on someone with HIV infecting someone else with HIV, whether the one who infected the other knew they had HIV or not. Because, even if they had HIV and did not know it, then they behaved recklessly, negligently by first knowingly having unprotected sex (or sharing drug needles) and not following up with an HIV test afterwards, and then going on to have unprotected sex (or sharing needles) again with someone else.

If persons who do this knew they could be prosecuted if they passed the HIV virus by negligent behavior, knowingly or not (because it is negligent not to know), then all kinds of negligent sexual behavior would go out of favor over night.

There was a time when this kind of view helped end the extent to which negligent sexual behaviors had made syphillus a major disease (carried for many years and then passed to a new spouse). People getting a marriage license had to present a blood test.

[PLK]

Follows on the heels of the recommendation that ALL adolescent girls receive the genital warts vaccine to prevent cervical cancer. All this is an effort to make us all "equal."

Dontcha know that ANYONE can come down with cervical cancer and AIDS? Sheesh ... must be in the air or sumthin.

[Billthedrill]

I'll offer a compromise - I promise to get checked after every night of wild anonymous passive anal bathhouse sex I have. Yes, I realize that's a lot of testing...

Seriously, it doesn't hurt to get tested as a part of a regular physical but it's an extra expense for a low-risk population. If you're a health-care professional subject to needle sticks or a recent transfusion recipient or anything else that might change that low-risk status you'd be silly not to be tested, IMHO.

[Secret Agent Man]

Yes, and you also should know "recommended" will eventually be replaced with "required".

BTW, what is your social security number? /sarc

[fml]

No

[Myrddin]

Ridiculous. It is still a disease of gays and intravenous drug users. Most of the population never comes in contact with either group in a fashion that would communicate HIV.

[darkangel82]

I don't think so.

[darkangel82]

Nanny state and libertarian ping

[Dallas59]

No thanks...I do not need unnecessary tests and especially tests conducted by the government.

[Gabz]

I was under the impression that this is a fairly common practice already. It was a standard part of the routine bloodwork I had done while I was pregnant, and I am in no way in a high risk category for it.

[RightWhale]

Go down to the Blood Bank and donate. They will test for that for free.

[dinasour]

All Americans between the ages of 13 and 64 should be routinely tested for HIV

Drive by hit piece from the AP.

Yeah and all Americans should get a tetanus shot.

That's a far cry from jack booted thugs showing up at your house at 3:00am for a blood sample.

I say, "All AP reporters between the ages of 13 and 64 should be routinely tested for terrorism connections".

[Alia]

"Free AIDS/HIV tests under "universal health care plan" masquerading as "helping you!".

[steveegg]

I say, "All AP reporters between the ages of 13 and 64 should be routinely tested for terrorism connections".

Now there's a test I can and do support.

[dinasour]

Now there's a test I can and do support.

And we are the clinic.

[riverdawg]

"Wonder what the false positive rate is?"

That's a good question. A related, and even better, question is what is the positive predictive value (PPV) of the test? In other words, what is the probability that someone who tests positive really is HIV-infected? The answer depends on the false positive rate *and* the prevalence of HIV in the tested population. The CDC claims that about 1 million people in the U.S. are HIV- infected. Let's assume that all of them are among the 230 million people in the targeted test population of 16 to 64 year olds. So, the claimed prevalence of HIV is 1/230 = 0.00435, or slightly more than 4 per 1000. The CDC also says that the false-positive rate (one minus the "specificity") for the rapid HIV test that is being recommended is 0.2% or 2 per 1000. (The false positive rate is essentially zero.) That means that the PPV is 4/6 = 0.66, so one-third of all people who would be tested under this plan will test positive even though they are really HIV-negative.

Testing the entire population for a low-prevalence disease when there is a non-trivial false-positive rate is a huge waste of money. It's why we don't routinely test everyone for TB.

[riverdawg]

"I was under the impression that this is a fairly common practice already."

Pregnant women, blood donors, and applicants for non-group life insurance are routinely tested, as are most health professionals who may have contact with infected patients. The rest of us are not now routinely tested.

[Ganymede]

"Ridiculous. It is still a disease of gays and intravenous drug users. Most of the population never comes in contact with either group in a fashion that would communicate HIV."

***

Sure, most of the population may not, but I believe the largest growing population of HIV infections is among heterosexual black women. I have known at least one to die as a result of her husband passing it along.

[Bryan24]

Here's a recommendation:

Call for the testing of all:

- men who practice anal intercourse and oral sex with other men.
- men who have sex with women who have multiple partners.
- women who have sex with multiple partners.

For those who are virgins, and after having sexual relations chose to only have sex with one person, don't worry, the chances of you catching AIDS are infinitesimal.

For those who advocate 100% testing for AIDS/HIV, examine their brains to see if they are still present and functioning.