Feds Want Routine HIV Testing For Americans

AP ^ | September 21 2006

[jmc1969]

All Americans between the ages of 13 and 64 should be routinely tested for HIV to help catch infections earlier and stop the spread of the deadly virus, federal health recommendations announced Thursday say.

"We know that many HIV infected people seek health care and they don't get tested. And many people are not diagnosed until late in the course of their illness, when they're already sick with HIV-related conditions," said Dr. Timothy Mastro, acting director of the CDC's division of HIV/AIDS prevention.

"By identifying people earlier through a screening program, we'll allow them to access life-extending therapy, and also through prevention services, learn how to avoid transmitting HIV infection to others," he said.

The announcement was hailed by some HIV patient advocates and health policy experts. They said the guidelines could help end the stigma of HIV testing and lead to needed care for an estimated 250,000 Americans who don't yet know they have the disease.

"I think it's an incredible advance. I think it's courageous on the part of the CDC," said A. David Paltiel, a health policy expert at the Yale University School of Medicine.

[Killborn]

Not no, not hell no, F*CK NO!

[wbill]

so one-third of all people who would be tested under this plan will test positive even though they are really HIV-negative

I'd be terrified of the damage that this could cause. I have nothing to worry about - but - Speaking only for myself, if I incorrectly tested positive, it would take a long time and a lot of negative tests to completely erase the worry. It's the old saw about a person with one watch knowing what time it is, but a person with two watches never being sure.

Not to mention damage to my marriage, etc. "I tested positive, then negative, so it's nothing to worry about, honey." Yeah, right.

[ivyleaguebrat]

"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."

You mean one-third of people who will test positive are actually negative. Since the number of people testing positive is pretty miniscule (6 in 1000), I don't think that's unreasonable. More tests would be done to eliminate rule out false positives.

[ivyleaguebrat]

"Assume $100 per test"

From several info sites I just googled, it looks like the rapid test is $6-10. One site said $15.

[SierraWasp]

Better to be pist off, than pist on!!!

[SierraWasp]

Yes! "The wages of sin, is death!"

[SierraWasp]

"They are trying to avoid the stigma of testing high risk groups.."

Precisely... the ultimate POLITICAL disease!!!

[Killborn]

Heh, of course. :)

[riverdawg]

"Since the number of people testing positive will be pretty minuscule ..."

(6/1000)*230,000,000 = 1,380,000 will test positive, and 460,000 of these will be false positives. Scaring the hell out of about a half-million people, almost all of whom have zero risk factors for HIV infection, and then subjecting them to additional (e.g., ELISA) testing - which *is* expensive - doesn't seem to be very wise public policy to me. Most of us, by virtue of our genetic makeup, have essentially zero chance of passing on Tay-Sachs disease (mainly afflicting Ashkenazi Jews) or sickle-cell anemia (mainly afflicting those of West and Central African descent). Do you advocate mandatory genetic testing for these traits for all prospective parents?

[nmh]

I like that ->

"With government as your savior from disaster, it must first be your master!!!"

[SierraWasp]

Katrina, for a recent example...

[dalereed]

I love the part about not testing anyone over 64, need to make sure SS recipients die off quick!

[mombonn]

It's just wrong.

I was really ticked when I heard the recommendation this morning. Unless AIDS is now spread through casual contact, there is NO WAY I could have contracted it.

What is the real motivation? To create a health database? It stinks.

[pointsal]

no way

[SierraWasp]

Wull, they taxed me and shamed me and brow-beat me outa smokin cigarettes when I became 63. Now that I'm gonna be 65 a week from Sunday, I'm gonna live to at least 85, just to see how pist they can git!

Ya know, the higher and deeper this crappola gits, the less I'm carin about all of it. At one time I allowed myself to care enough to give my very best but it wasn't appreciated. Ane ever since then I've squacked my head off till the cows came home everyday about all this continual crappola and IT DOES ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD!!!

So, even though I'll never "retire" from a productive, positive life, I'm retiring from giving too much of a chit about the sickness and pussey thinking of our malignant multi-level governmental monsterous system!!!

I haven't become completely cynical because that would mean I've given up all hope. I'm just lonesome for the nation, state and community I once knew that had some taboos, standards and traditions in American culture that mattered to nearly everyone. But I understand that's how one gets to feeling when aging. You start to reminiss way too much!!!

[dalereed]

The drafters of this stupid rule that exempted eveyone over 64 forgot to make Viagra an illegal substance.

[Dog Gone]

Don't make too much of this. It's a general health suggestion. The government isn't going to require or it pay for it.

[nmh]

And what are their priorities after Katrina?

A "gay pride" parade and casinos.

And they vote the SAME corrupt godless people in office AGAIN! Some never learn.

[SierraWasp]

I won't, but I'm getting sick and tired of being sick and tired of these damn do-gooders brow-beating and needling everyone with their "audacity, audacity, audacity!!!" (Some French Dude from the time of the blood-drunk French Revolution)