HIV: Are scare tactics useful anymore? (1 Viewer)

[banco55]

I suspect it's more about repetition and having a few "digestible" messages about health then the content of ads per se. It seems like every day on the radio or news we hear some organization or doctor trolling for Government money to run an education campaign about some public health issue or another. I think pretty soon the public just switches off. They need to pick maybe a dozen health issues that affect the most amount of people and just flog them to death rather then have 50 campaigns on different issues. I mean you could have a blank screen with a voiceover that says "if you don't wear a condom you might get aids and die". If you played the ad on high rotation people would get the message even if it's a shitty boring ad.

 

[kami]

Its more because of the numbers than anything, the gay community allready has a large, established population of HIV pos people. They also engage in riskier behaviour, anal sex is about 10x more likely to result in transmission than normal vaginal sex. IV drug use is also about 10x more likely to result in infection. Also females are more likely to get HIV than males, sex for a male with a HIV pos female is about half as risky as a female who has sex with a HIV pos male.

When you move in a community that has a large population of HIV pos people, who pretty much all engage in risky behaviour like anal sex, that also has a culture of casual, promiscuity then you are always going to be more at risk than people who dont.

Theres only about 18 000 people living in Australia with HIV, the vast majority of whom are gay or IV drug users, theres maybe 800 cases a year, the overwhelming majority of whom are gay men . HIV doesnt "target" gays or IV drug users, these people just engage in activity that is a lot riskier and makes it easier to transmit the virus.

BTW we arent talking globally here, an add campaign could only affect the results in Australia, so i am just talking nation wide. I stand by what i said, if you are a straight white male who doesnt use drugs, your chances of sleeping with someone who has HIV are astronomically low[theres only about 1000 women in Aus with it, and i would say most of those are junkies], and even if you do, your odds of being infected from that one encounter are about 1 in 2000.

You are entirely missing the point, Serius.

Trends in other nations are relevant in demonstrating how our nation reacts to things - the current apathy is creating a dramatic increase in heterosexual infection in nations similar to ours (especially the US) and in fact there are signs this is happening here as well as the rate of infection of heterosexual relations as compared to drug use is about seven times more at present as shown here for the 2000 - 2006 period and here for the 2007 period. We can observe from these statistics that the average rate of infection for heterosexual sex acts was at 8% spanning 2000 - 2006 but that in 2007 the statistic was at 21% indicating a steady rise of infection amongst the heterosexual population, with the National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research [1] indicating a statistic of 18% for the year of 2005, which is all very troubling since in this decade the total of infections has increased to alarming levels. To make things even worse, while women in Australia have for the most part had very low rates of infection the rate of infection for women (presumably straight or bi for the most part), while still less than men by about five times, has doubled since 2005.

This shows that while the raw quantity of HIV positive persons is lower the rate of newly infected people (which is the most relevant thing here) is increasing at an alarming rate and it does not require a mass of people to transmit an infection (I'll just nab this map from loq here: )

It takes just one person to potentially infect each of those chains and increasingly, that's what is happening.

This attitude of yours, Serius, especially amongst the more sexually active of your peers is what's causing this increasing rate of infection. It's not just a gay problem or a drugee problem or a non-white problem because at this rate it will only take another decade before the straight white persons become the problem. Let's try to prevent us from becoming the US.

 

[katie tully]

the current apathy is creating a dramatic increase in heterosexual infection in nations similar to ours (especially the US) and in fact there are signs this is happening here as well as the rate of infection of heterosexual relations as compared to drug use is about seven times more at present as shown here for the 2000 - 2006 period and here for the 2007 period.

Which imo supports the complacency theory. HIV/AIDS was a "homosexual, junkie" disease and thus the heterosexual community probably thought themselves immune.

 

[Serius]

You are entirely missing the point, Serius.

Trends in other nations are relevant in demonstrating how our nation reacts to things - the current apathy is creating a dramatic increase in heterosexual infection in nations similar to ours (especially the US) and in fact there are signs this is happening here as well as the rate of infection of heterosexual relations as compared to drug use is about seven times more at present as shown here for the 2000 - 2006 period and here for the 2007 period. We can observe from these statistics that the average rate of infection for heterosexual sex acts was at 8% spanning 2000 - 2006 but that in 2007 the statistic was at 21% indicating a steady rise of infection amongst the heterosexual population, with the National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research [1] indicating a statistic of 18% for the year of 2005, which is all very troubling since in this decade the total of infections has increased to alarming levels. To make things even worse, while women in Australia have for the most part had very low rates of infection the rate of infection for women (presumably straight or bi for the most part), while still less than men by about five times, has doubled since 2005.

This shows that while the raw quantity of HIV positive persons is lower the rate of newly infected people (which is the most relevant thing here) is increasing at an alarming rate and it does not require a mass of people to transmit an infection (I'll just nab this map from loq here: )



It takes just one person to potentially infect each of those chains and increasingly, that's what is happening.

This attitude of yours, Serius, especially amongst the more sexually active of your peers is what's causing this increasing rate of infection. It's not just a gay problem or a drugee problem or a non-white problem because at this rate it will only take another decade before the straight white persons become the problem. Let's try to prevent us from becoming the US.

oh ok, well thats very concerning. I still think the right course of action is to be upfront with what is going on, scare tactics just breed hatred for minority groups, yes they might get people to wear condoms, but its dishonnest and not right. Give people the truth, the upfront facts and then lead them to the decision of wearing condoms and acting safely, because people who feel they came to a choice like that themselves are more likely to adhere to it. The truth about HIV/AIDS is scary enough as it is, we dont need to make up bullshit and tell kids that if they have unsafe sex they will get aids and die.

 

[kami]

oh ok, well thats very concerning. I still think the right course of action is to be upfront with what is going on, scare tactics just breed hatred for minority groups, yes they might get people to wear condoms, but its dishonnest and not right. Give people the truth, the upfront facts and then lead them to the decision of wearing condoms and acting safely, because people who feel they came to a choice like that themselves are more likely to adhere to it. The truth about HIV/AIDS is scary enough as it is, we dont need to make up bullshit and tell kids that if they have unsafe sex they will get aids and die.

I agree to an extent but I think that the whole niche myth is more dangerous than the instant doom myth so we're not wrong when we tell kids that they are at grave risk because it does affect everyone.

I'm just unsure as to how we should go about it. AIDS still has this notion of doom about it but the public's collective subconscious seems to have convinced itself that it's someone else's doom. So obviously pointing out the destructive power of AIDS on an individual is not working and it's only served to tie HIV positive persons with a stigma. Conversely we need to make people take this issue seriously and things like the recent cigarette campaigns have shown us that confronting the destructive power of something is an effective way to do this but if believing in the destructive power of an STD is not enough then what?

Logic suggests that if we want to make people take the issue seriously without stigmatising current sufferers then we should be demonising the act itself (like with cigarettes, speeding, drink driving, drugs) rather than the effect but the US is a glorious example of how abstinence education and the stigmatising of sex just doesn't help and instead only makes things dramatically worse. Are supportive safe sex education programs really all we can do here? Will they be at all enough?

Of course, another brand of thought suggests that it's the association with minority groups, drug users and prostitutes which serve to create the stigma with a 'they deserve it' undertone and a 'it won't happen to me' sentiment but again, how do we simultaneously break this and make people sit up and take notice? Scare tactics might serve to disrupt the latter part but a stint of hysteria is certainly not enough to break the deeply embedded feelings to do with the former.

 

[KFunk]

It isnt impossible, but gays and IV drug users are the most at risk, easily thousands of times more likely to get it.

[citation needed]

 

[Serius]

[citation needed]

This study was done on relative risk per act, it showed that anal sex is about 10x more risky than vaginal sex.
Antiretroviral Postexposure Prophylaxis After Sexual, Injection-Drug Use, or Other Nonoccupational Exposure to HIV in the United States </P><P>Recommendations from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

It also shows that receptive vaginal sex is 2x as risky as insertive, yet women are totally underpepresented in HIV carriers, the vast majority are gay men[followed by IV drug users which is the riskiest behaviour of all]

if HIV is as widespread in the gay community as the stats show, and anal sex is 10x more risky than vaginal sex, then it logically follows that this is a group that is very high risk. If you are a gay man, sadly there is a good chance someone you know has HIV, and if you sleep with them you are much more at risk than if i slept with a female with HIV.

Now we can assess my risk, a straight, white, non IV drug using male. Theres about 1000 women in Australia with HIV, most of those would be IV drug users, prostitutes or just homeless and even if i did associate with those types of people, my chances of running into one are very low simply by how few there are. My chances of getting HIV are almost nonexistant, I would better spend my time worrying about heart disease, stroke, cancer or depression.

I dont think i need to explain why IV drug users are thousands of times more at risk than normal people, its pretty obvious.

 

[kami]

This study was done on relative risk per act, it showed that anal sex is about 10x more risky than vaginal sex.
Antiretroviral Postexposure Prophylaxis After Sexual, Injection-Drug Use, or Other Nonoccupational Exposure to HIV in the United States </P><P>Recommendations from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

It also shows that receptive vaginal sex is 2x as risky as insertive, yet women are totally underpepresented in HIV carriers, the vast majority are gay men[followed by IV drug users which is the riskiest behaviour of all]

if HIV is as widespread in the gay community as the stats show, and anal sex is 10x more risky than vaginal sex, then it logically follows that this is a group that is very high risk. If you are a gay man, sadly there is a good chance someone you know has HIV, and if you sleep with them you are much more at risk than if i slept with a female with HIV.

Now we can assess my risk, a straight, white, non IV drug using male. Theres about 1000 women in Australia with HIV, most of those would be IV drug users, prostitutes or just homeless and even if i did associate with those types of people, my chances of running into one are very low simply by how few there are. My chances of getting HIV are almost nonexistant, I would better spend my time worrying about heart disease, stroke, cancer or depression.

I dont think i need to explain why IV drug users are thousands of times more at risk than normal people, its pretty obvious.

You're conflating present US with Aust statistics in an inappropriate way - drug users are actually one of the least infectious groups here in Australia with heterosexual couples having a transmission rate of roughly eight times as much as the average drug user.

Escorts are also not permitted to operate if they are HIV positive - there was actually a case on this not long ago in Canberra - so unless you're talking povo streetwalkers then no, they're not a majorly contributing group. I've even been told that the safe sex policies of many agencies is very stringent including condoms even for oral sex. So really, it's not so much the call girls either.

And your insistence that HIV is not an issue that you could encounter because of your demographic is outright moronic. Heterosexuals are becoming an increasingly large demographic and the rate of infection for them is not abating, it's increasing at a worrying rate each year and it only takes one of these newly infected (and remember the distinction between infected and diagnosed) to have slept with someone you have slept with who you have slept with etc. It's a chain and you choosing your partners based on demographic means squat, you're going to have to deal with that and rubber up if you actually do want your chance of infection to be non-existent.

 

[Serius]

Its just stats, dont be upset. I dont engage in risky behaviour, and i wear condoms. IV drug users are at risk because sharing needles has one of the highest rates of transmition.

Yeah i have read about the strict procedures of brothels and such, but only about 80 women a year get infected, thats not many at all, street prostitution like you said is a risky job, as is being homeless [and sometimes its both]. I guess we will have to address the HIV question right now before it becomes a huge problem in the future, but atm only about 6000 people have died from AIDS in Australia since it was first discovered... I think the government could better spend that advertising money on something like exercise programs, seen as the top killers in Australia are cardiovascular disease, stroke and cancer.

Yes, we should be looking ahead, but cant we do it in a smart way? the sex ed i got in school was quite good, but even then when it came to AIDS they never told us how few have it, how few have died from it and that even if you sleep unprotected with a HIV positive girl your odds are only 1/2000 of actually getting it. All they told us was that anyone could have HIV, and if you have unprotected sex you will get AIDS and die.

They also answered questions about swimming in the pool with someone who has HIV, how kissing someone with it is risky [which is really sad, a friend of a friend was pos and he was basically ostracised for it] because saliva can contain it....basically a whole heap of bad or twisted info.

People dont respond to bullshit like this, they need to know the truth, what risky behaviour is [and how risky it actually is] and statistics about it, then you get them to make an informed decision. Dont just show adds of little white girls being bowled over by death, what the fuck are the odds of her getting HIV? i wonder how many gays got bashed by overprotective fathers not wanting the AIDS around their little sunshine because of that add.

 

[kami]

Its just stats, dont be upset. I dont engage in risky behaviour, and i wear condoms. IV drug users are at risk because sharing needles has one of the highest rates of transmition.

I'm not upset, Serius, I just think you're a little foolish, that's all.

It's behaviour that is risky for someone who is infected, to share needles, but ... there aren't many who pass it on that way anymore. In consideration of statistics and infection rates, you genuinely are more at risk having hetero sex than using needles. The majority of the drug using population (about 1/8th of the hetero transmitters) are actually just those using part drugs and consequently engaging in unsafe sex. That's why the whole 'I'm straight white and don't use IV drugs so am safe' thing is fallacious (and is actually the problem here).

Yeah i have read about the strict procedures of brothels and such, but only about 80 women a year get infected, thats not many at all, street prostitution like you said is a risky job, as is being homeless [and sometimes its both].

Old stats, Serius. That's 2005~ or thereabouts, but the time it hit 2007 it was around 140 per year year and has gotten higher in the time since.

I guess we will have to address the HIV question right now before it becomes a huge problem in the future, but atm only about 6000 people have died from AIDS in Australia since it was first discovered... I think the government could better spend that advertising money on something like exercise programs, seen as the top killers in Australia are cardiovascular disease, stroke and cancer.

They have spent that money on it, Serius, mainly by targeting cigarettes and sun exposure in the ads constantly. There are also ads cautioning against obesity all over the television, because of the health risks. Exercise programs are also mandatory for all of primary school and most of secondary school.

You're talking as if they can't multi-task at all, which is silly, and as if they aren't doing campaigns about these things ... which is again silly since these campaigns are referenced throughout the thread due to their comparative success and failure and how that can be applied to HIV campaigns.

Yes, we should be looking ahead, but cant we do it in a smart way? the sex ed i got in school was quite good, but even then when it came to AIDS they never told us how few have it, how few have died from it and that even if you sleep unprotected with a HIV positive girl your odds are only 1/2000 of actually getting it. All they told us was that anyone could have HIV, and if you have unprotected sex you will get AIDS and die.

They also answered questions about swimming in the pool with someone who has HIV, how kissing someone with it is risky [which is really sad, a friend of a friend was pos and he was basically ostracised for it] because saliva can contain it....basically a whole heap of bad or twisted info.

People dont respond to bullshit like this, they need to know the truth, what risky behaviour is [and how risky it actually is] and statistics about it, then you get them to make an informed decision. Dont just show adds of little white girls being bowled over by death, what the fuck are the odds of her getting HIV? i wonder how many gays got bashed by overprotective fathers not wanting the AIDS around their little sunshine because of that add.

I agree to an extent but I think that the whole niche myth, like you're working with, is more dangerous than the instant doom myth so we're not wrong when we tell kids that they are at grave risk because it does affect everyone.

I'm just unsure as to how we should go about it. AIDS still has this notion of doom about it but the public's collective subconscious seems to have convinced itself that it's someone else's doom. So obviously pointing out the destructive power of AIDS on an individual is not working and it's only served to tie HIV positive persons with a stigma. Conversely we need to make people take this issue seriously and things like the recent cigarette campaigns have shown us that confronting the destructive power of something is an effective way to do this but if believing in the destructive power of an STD is not enough then what?

Logic suggests that if we want to make people take the issue seriously without stigmatising current sufferers then we should be demonising the act itself (like with cigarettes, speeding, drink driving, drugs) rather than the effect but the US is a glorious example of how abstinence education and the stigmatising of sex just doesn't help and instead only makes things dramatically worse. Are supportive safe sex education programs really all we can do here? Will they be at all enough?

Of course, another brand of thought suggests that it's the association with minority groups, drug users and prostitutes which serve to create the stigma with a 'they deserve it' undertone and a 'it won't happen to me' sentiment but again, how do we simultaneously break this and make people sit up and take notice? Scare tactics might serve to disrupt the latter part but a stint of hysteria is certainly not enough to break the deeply embedded feelings to do with the former.

 

[Tully B.]

Here's France's approach to the problem, dunno if it actually works that well though:

[youtube]Suq0FhISbvQ[/youtube]

Is this definitely a French add? At the end there are two messages; one in French and one in German. The German message says something along the lines of: "Live long enough in order to find the "right one" (love of your life, I assume)". I assume the French message says the same thing.

Anywho, the add seems good enough; it would be a bit strange if it's broadcasted on any and every network, for all the little kiddies to see.

Back when the HIV crisis was at its peak, the best way to avoid trouble, whether you were gay or straight, was to be in a monogamous relationship. Though this is still the case to today, promoting monogomy is probably not going to work, and it is the ends that we should be looking at in this case, not the means. Condoms do make people think of sex, but for adolescents at least, pretty much anything makes them think about sex. The difference is, condoms make them think about safe sex, and if the sacrifice for this result is promiscuity, then so be it.

 

[xeuyrawp]

I agree that I liked the positive, and dare I say it realistic, messages On a personal level though it didn't make me any more likely to use condoms...

Why would an HIV-awareness ad targeted at straight women make a straight man any more likely to use a condom?

Is this definitely a French add? At the end there are two messages; one in French and one in German. The German message says something along the lines of: "Live long enough in order to find the "right one" (love of your life, I assume)". I assume the French message says the same thing.

The youtube info says it was aired on ARTE, which is a German/French joint station.

Edit: hahah, as an aside, I love it when people get shitty and patronising so they repeat your name as if they don't know who you're speaking to.

 

[Serius]

I'm not upset, Serius, I just think you're a little foolish, that's all.

It's behaviour that is risky for someone who is infected, to share needles, but ... there aren't many who pass it on that way anymore. In consideration of statistics and infection rates, you genuinely are more at risk having hetero sex than using needles. The majority of the drug using population (about 1/8th of the hetero transmitters) are actually just those using part drugs and consequently engaging in unsafe sex. That's why the whole 'I'm straight white and don't use IV drugs so am safe' thing is fallacious (and is actually the problem here).


Old stats, Serius. That's 2005~ or thereabouts, but the time it hit 2007 it was around 140 per year year and has gotten higher in the time since.


They have spent that money on it, Serius, mainly by targeting cigarettes and sun exposure in the ads constantly. There are also ads cautioning against obesity all over the television, because of the health risks. Exercise programs are also mandatory for all of primary school and most of secondary school.

You're talking as if they can't multi-task at all, which is silly, and as if they aren't doing campaigns about these things ... which is again silly since these campaigns are referenced throughout the thread due to their comparative success and failure and how that can be applied to HIV campaigns.

TBH the reason i wear condoms is because the only person i trust is myself and i dont want to be a daddy yet, not because i think its likely i will get HIV.

The thing is, that in terms of killers, i doubt AIDS even makes the top 100, if we wanted to make a big impact on health there are so many more things we should be worrying about. Cot death for instance is a bigger killer than AIDS, but nobody talks about that anymore, and how many people out there know how to recognise a stroke and what to do when it happens? my granddad suffered a debilitating stroke that cost him his mobility and speech, 8yrs later he had another one and died, its much more likely to happen than getting HIV, and tbh i would prefer HIV to a stroke because HIV can be managed where as a stroke fucks you up for the remainder of your life.

In regards to targeting the risky behaviour and demonizing the behaviour and not the people, i dont think it works like that. Normal cancer people havent been descriminated against, but lung cancer is, nobody supports lung cancer research anymore because the population thinks they deserved it. Even then, is it right to demonize someone for doing something that only affects them, is perfectly legal to do and their choice and right?

I dont know how to stop the spread of HIV, i dont know if an add campaign that is ethical and truthful that doesnt have a backlash against the HIV pos people would work, i dont know if its even possible. We do need to try something because if the problem is growing like you said, better to stop it now.

Lol at this

Back when the HIV crisis was at its peak, the best way to avoid trouble, whether you were gay or straight, was to be in a monogamous relationship

Whilst somewhat true, its unrealistic because you can only ever ensure your own monogamy, you dont know if your partner is cheating on you, has a secret drug habit or anything. When HIV first hit america, there was a spike of straight married women getting HIV. These blissfully unaware women who thought they were in a committed marriage had husbands who went on business trips, slept with prostitutes and brought it back with them.

 

[Tully B.]

Lol at this

Whilst somewhat true, its unrealistic because you can only ever ensure your own monogamy, you dont know if your partner is cheating on you, has a secret drug habit or anything. When HIV first hit america, there was a spike of straight married women getting HIV. These blissfully unaware women who thought they were in a committed marriage had husbands who went on business trips, slept with prostitutes and brought it back with them.

Well then those situations wouldn't be monogamous relationships, now would they?
Anyway, I wasn't saying that people should be monogamous purely for fear of contracting HIV, I was just making a point. There was a context to that statement that you should have paid closer attention to.

 

[loquasagacious]

In regards to targeting the risky behaviour and demonizing the behaviour and not the people, i dont think it works like that. Normal cancer people havent been descriminated against, but lung cancer is, nobody supports lung cancer research anymore because the population thinks they deserved it. Even then, is it right to demonize someone for doing something that only affects them, is perfectly legal to do and their choice and right?

I dont know how to stop the spread of HIV, i dont know if an add campaign that is ethical and truthful that doesnt have a backlash against the HIV pos people would work, i dont know if its even possible. We do need to try something because if the problem is growing like you said, better to stop it now.

Good point. Even if a campaign successfully stigmatises risky behaviour it is tempting for society to look down on sufferers as people who engaged in the risky behavior and 'got what they deserved'....