ForumGarden

New York City doctors have discovered a man with a previously unseen strain of HIV that is resistant to three of the four types of anti-viral drugs that combat the disease, and progresses from infection to full-blown AIDS in two or three months, the health department said.

Should people who have been diagnosed with AIDS be quarantined the same as those diagnosed with other highly contagious and deadly diseases?

hello Clint, that is very frightening news indeed. this is the bubonic plague of our time. horrific. reminiscent of the black plague which decimated europe. it seems africa is the most ravaged. and may well be the origin. i know only this...i am not entitled to know if someone i have dealings with has AIDS. so when they spit on me or i am exposed to their blood or other bodily fluids, i have to get a court order to find out if i have been exposed to the virus. so this new strain scares me. it seems the virus has mutated and become more resistant and virulent. great.

So far as I understand the only ways to get it are sexually transmitted, an exchange of body fluids, like the instances mentioned by ladycop. Were it an airborne virus we would be in deep trouble. Standing next to someone with aids won't kill you. There are probably worse things to come scientists have been waiting on another pandemic like the flu epidemic in 1918, they still don't understand why it died away.

if someone has a cut, and gets another persons blood on them, they are exposed. anytime one of us gets blood on us, or any bodily fluid, or is bitten by a subject, we are REQUIRED to go to ER and start some nasty "preventative" meds.

lady cop wrote: .i am not entitled to know if someone i have dealings with has AIDS. so when they spit on me or i am exposed to their blood or other bodily fluids, i have to get a court order to find out if i have been exposed to the virus. so this new strain scares me. it seems the virus has mutated and become more resistant and virulent. great.
There needs to be some sort of law to allow cops to find out if the scum they deal with is going to infect them with AIDS. They make you take a urine test for DUI's and give your DNA in certain cases, (don't they??) cops should be able to find out if a suspect that has exposed them is sick. It's absurd that they have to go through this BS to find out. Sheesh...like their lives aren't on the line on a daily basis as it is!! Screw privacy rights, what about the rights of the cops?

LC, how often do you have to go and get the "nasty preventative meds"? What exactly is the procedure?

A couple of years ago, a wreck occurred in front of me on a stretch of highway a long way from medical help. The driver was a mess. I did all I could do. He had greasy hair and he was covered with tattoos and piercings. When the ambulance finally arrived I got back in my vehicle to continue on. It was only then that I realized I was covered with blood. I washed off at the next rest stop and I’ve had my blood tested a couple of times since. I’m okay but It sure made me wonder.

A police officer is faced with these situations often and sometimes they find themselves struggling with the victim or perpetrator, risking a cut.

Many people have died and are dieing from AIDS who contracted it innocently.

Just for clarification...the fact that he had piercings and tattooes were what caused you concern?

You were pretty brave to stop and help, lots of people nowadays would just keep going. I think the scariest thing is the people who get it from tainted blood in the damn hospital!! That scares me to death. And now we've got a strain that's even tougher??

BabyRider wrote: There needs to be some sort of law to allow cops to find out if the scum they deal with is going to infect them with AIDS. They make you take a urine test for DUI's and give your DNA in certain cases, (don't they??) cops should be able to find out if a suspect that has exposed them is sick. It's absurd that they have to go through this BS to find out. Sheesh...like their lives aren't on the line on a daily basis as it is!! Screw privacy rights, what about the rights of the cops?

LC, how often do you have to go and get the "nasty preventative meds"? What exactly is the procedure?
because of privacy laws i can't know if someone has the virus. we have to have a judge release the info. DNA is in a different category, we are entitled to their 'evidence'. they can refuse of course, then it's back to the judge. we don't take urine for DUI, we use breathalyzer. .......so, if we are exposed we go to ER for baseline blood draw. then they give us these meds that make you feel very sick. you take them for two weeks and go back for another blood draw.

BabyRider wrote: Just for clarification...the fact that he had piercings and tattooes were what caused you concern?


Yes. He wasn't a clean person either, which makes one wonder more about the tatooes and piercings.

Privacy laws :-5 If we spent half the effort making sure people paid the appropriate penalty for their crime as we do making sure none of the criminals have their rights "infringed" upon, we'd be huge steps ahead as a society. This subject has always been a torn in my side. SO much concern over the criminals rights...as far as I'm concerned, once they break the laws, they have reneged their rights. Privacy laws: :yh_tongue

Makes me wanna puke.

tell you what Babyrider...we just all behave as if EVERYONE has it, and are as cautious as we can be....but it's true, blood is a common problem with our "clients".i NEVER search anyone without gloves. and i warn them if there is a needle on their person they better tell me BEFORE i get stuck! or they will find themselves unceremoniously deposited on the ground in a heartbeat.

SergeiSamson0v wrote: I think the fact that there are privacy rights and all that is good. Not that I carry weapons or drugs on me or anything, I just think it's not fair for someone to just search you if they think you look suspicious. People who sell drugs or carry weapons must love these laws. Like I said, I don't carry either of them but if a cop wants to search me, he should need a warrant. House raids shouldn't be allowed at all either.
we don't search people for looking suspicious. we search for legal cause, like we have had to arrest them. warrants are needed to search homes, and probable cause is needed to obtain the warrant...there has to be a good reason. if MY safety is in question, i have every right to search someone for weapons, and cuff them too. until i determine they have no weapon. i can't wait for a warrant if i need to search someone in the middle of the night or any other time.

lady cop wrote: we don't search people for looking suspicious. we search for legal cause, like we have had to arrest them. warrants are needed to search homes, and probable cause is needed to obtain the warrant...there has to be a good reason. if MY safety is in question, i have every right to search someone for weapons, and cuff them too. until i determine they have no weapon. i can't wait for a warrant if i need to search someone in the middle of the night or any other time.
I just hope you don't get poked with a needle during a search. This mutated AIDS virus would have you off the job and writing a will in 120 days. How can we allow this to be treated like the flu? Isn't it time to stop the politicaly correct approach to something that could kill as many innocent people in a year as 9-11? What about the babies that will be born with this stuff?