Ruling barring discharge of HIV-positive airmen upheld

[afleitch]

https://apnews.com/fb3abd794b5cf39e7a2bc925276838f1

A federal appeals court has upheld an injunction barring the Trump administration from discharging two Air Force members who are HIV-positive.

The airmen sued in 2018, arguing that there is no rational basis for prohibiting deployment of service members with HIV. The men argue that major advancements in treatment mean the airmen can easily be given appropriate medical care and present no real risk of transmission to others.

What’s with this administration and trying to get at qualified members of our armed forces?

Because in the end the people who cheer him the loudest are the ones who think the gays and the hivvy are just ick.

I would be interested in what the military actually had to say about this and whether they supported it. Remember, they didn't want the transgender fan, but Mike Pence and his crew flattered the president of two where he went along and did it anyway.

Though even if the military supported it, I wouldn't consider that dispositive. They very well may want to avoid the increased medical costs like any government agency seeking to cut corners, and may do it under the rubric of supposed Health / safety concerns.

But, of course, if it was YOUR son or daughter that became infected through blood-to-blood transmission of HIV in a battlefield scenario, you'd be angry no end.  

My son has actually served in combat, and if he had contracted HIV through such a scenario, the "major advancements in treatment" would do little to mitigate the impact such an event would have on every aspect of his life.  What would the effect be on his marriage?  On his relationships with his children?  On his own health?  On his finances (to the extent that he would have to pay for the "major advances in treatment"?  HIV isn't the death sentence it once was, but it is what it is, it's transmitted the way it's transmitted, and the military ought to be doing everything it needs to do to protect all of its soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen.  And we're talking about COMBAT DEPLOYMENTS here, where bleeding people are carried off of battlefields, living or dead, by their comrades.

There are solutions that can be implemented so that HIV-infected military can be taken care of.  These people shouldn't be tossed out into the street with an assigned cardboard box and a hollow "Thank you for your service!".  I've spent decades working around HIV-infected persons, and I'm not someone who's paranoid about being infected.  But let's stop pretending that this issue does not interfere with combat readiness.  And serving in the military is not a "right"; it's a privilege and an honor that's awarded based on our nation's need to defend itself.  It's not Federal Civil Service, where I would be in agreement with the above posters if someone were being forced out of their job solely for their health diagnosis.  

Regardless of your experience, your ideas on HIV seem to be out-of-date. Simple daily medication makes anybody with HIV incapable of transmitting the disease. A variety of studies and clinical trials consisting of tens of thousands of sexual encounters (which is the riskiest form of transmission besides perhaps direct blood transfusion) have shown not a single instance of transmission among those on ARTs and whose viral loads are at undetectable levels. There is zero evidence-based risk of somebody who is properly medicated transmitting the virus to somebody else via unprotected sex - let alone because they're "bleeding on the battlefield" or whatever.

Of course, the military and its supporters are filled with religious zealots with a disdain for "those queers" and that is where the actual apprehension on this matter now rests (assuming it's not based on a simple, outdated premise of ignorance on how far HIV treatment has progressed).

My personal experience is this area goes beyond my son serving in combat.  It goes to years of working with HIV-infected people (amongst others), annual job trainings on bloodborne illnesses and preventative measures, and interactions with both infected folks and the agencies that serve them.  And I work in an area which has some of the highest HIV rates in all of America.

And, yes, I am well aware of dramatic advances in HIV treatment.  None of this reduces the possibility of the transmission of bloodborne pathogens in a combat situation where one soldier, with open wounds, would be coming into contact with another soldier who is bleeding, or is blood-soaked.  HIV is spread by blood-to-blood transmission, and if you're telling me that a combat situation where both parties are likely to have open wounds and one party is seriously wounded, the transmission probabilities go up significantly.

There are four responses to what I just said

(A)  That's not the case.

(B)  That is the the case.

(C)  That is the case

(D)  That's the case, and it's great!  Suck it up!

Yes, the HIV issue is much different than in 1985.  Yes, vast progress in treatment has been made.  Does that mean that it's no big deal for someone to become infected by HIV?  Does it have NO negative impact on people's lives?  Yes, military service is traumatic, but there is a difference between the trauma that is part of the job and the trauma that is a result of public policy that is being driven by considerations that have more to do with domestic politics then the well-being of our military.  

Then there is the issue of the side effects of HIV meds:

Here's a list of conditions that can keep you out of the military.

I'm posting this because some people don't care about the facts, and don't really care about the welfare of those serving in our military.

How would a combat soldier who is undetectable pass HIV to another soldier?

[afleitch]

https://apnews.com/fb3abd794b5cf39e7a2bc925276838f1

A federal appeals court has upheld an injunction barring the Trump administration from discharging two Air Force members who are HIV-positive.

The airmen sued in 2018, arguing that there is no rational basis for prohibiting deployment of service members with HIV. The men argue that major advancements in treatment mean the airmen can easily be given appropriate medical care and present no real risk of transmission to others.

What’s with this administration and trying to get at qualified members of our armed forces?

Because in the end the people who cheer him the loudest are the ones who think the gays and the hivvy are just ick.

I would be interested in what the military actually had to say about this and whether they supported it. Remember, they didn't want the transgender fan, but Mike Pence and his crew flattered the president of two where he went along and did it anyway.

Though even if the military supported it, I wouldn't consider that dispositive. They very well may want to avoid the increased medical costs like any government agency seeking to cut corners, and may do it under the rubric of supposed Health / safety concerns.

But, of course, if it was YOUR son or daughter that became infected through blood-to-blood transmission of HIV in a battlefield scenario, you'd be angry no end.  

My son has actually served in combat, and if he had contracted HIV through such a scenario, the "major advancements in treatment" would do little to mitigate the impact such an event would have on every aspect of his life.  What would the effect be on his marriage?  On his relationships with his children?  On his own health?  On his finances (to the extent that he would have to pay for the "major advances in treatment"?  HIV isn't the death sentence it once was, but it is what it is, it's transmitted the way it's transmitted, and the military ought to be doing everything it needs to do to protect all of its soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen.  And we're talking about COMBAT DEPLOYMENTS here, where bleeding people are carried off of battlefields, living or dead, by their comrades.

There are solutions that can be implemented so that HIV-infected military can be taken care of.  These people shouldn't be tossed out into the street with an assigned cardboard box and a hollow "Thank you for your service!".  I've spent decades working around HIV-infected persons, and I'm not someone who's paranoid about being infected.  But let's stop pretending that this issue does not interfere with combat readiness.  And serving in the military is not a "right"; it's a privilege and an honor that's awarded based on our nation's need to defend itself.  It's not Federal Civil Service, where I would be in agreement with the above posters if someone were being forced out of their job solely for their health diagnosis.  

Regardless of your experience, your ideas on HIV seem to be out-of-date. Simple daily medication makes anybody with HIV incapable of transmitting the disease. A variety of studies and clinical trials consisting of tens of thousands of sexual encounters (which is the riskiest form of transmission besides perhaps direct blood transfusion) have shown not a single instance of transmission among those on ARTs and whose viral loads are at undetectable levels. There is zero evidence-based risk of somebody who is properly medicated transmitting the virus to somebody else via unprotected sex - let alone because they're "bleeding on the battlefield" or whatever.

Of course, the military and its supporters are filled with religious zealots with a disdain for "those queers" and that is where the actual apprehension on this matter now rests (assuming it's not based on a simple, outdated premise of ignorance on how far HIV treatment has progressed).

My personal experience is this area goes beyond my son serving in combat.  It goes to years of working with HIV-infected people (amongst others), annual job trainings on bloodborne illnesses and preventative measures, and interactions with both infected folks and the agencies that serve them.  And I work in an area which has some of the highest HIV rates in all of America.

And, yes, I am well aware of dramatic advances in HIV treatment.  None of this reduces the possibility of the transmission of bloodborne pathogens in a combat situation where one soldier, with open wounds, would be coming into contact with another soldier who is bleeding, or is blood-soaked.  HIV is spread by blood-to-blood transmission, and if you're telling me that a combat situation where both parties are likely to have open wounds and one party is seriously wounded, the transmission probabilities go up significantly.

There are four responses to what I just said

(A)  That's not the case.

(B)  That is the the case.

(C)  That is the case

(D)  That's the case, and it's great!  Suck it up!

Yes, the HIV issue is much different than in 1985.  Yes, vast progress in treatment has been made.  Does that mean that it's no big deal for someone to become infected by HIV?  Does it have NO negative impact on people's lives?  Yes, military service is traumatic, but there is a difference between the trauma that is part of the job and the trauma that is a result of public policy that is being driven by considerations that have more to do with domestic politics then the well-being of our military.  

Then there is the issue of the side effects of HIV meds:

Here's a list of conditions that can keep you out of the military.

I'm posting this because some people don't care about the facts, and don't really care about the welfare of those serving in our military.

How would a combat soldier who is undetectable pass HIV to another soldier?

If her's seriously wounded and bleeding, and has to be assisted off of a battlefield scene by another soldier, who has open wounds (however small). 

If it's undetectable it's untransmittable. So how does it pass to another soldier in a combat setting?