Free mandatory STD testing?

[Edi]

Talanth, check who I'm replying to. You still have no argument, because you need to justify the gain vs the harm from the mandatory testing system you propose, and the drawbacks are far greater than the gains. Thus the system would be a net negative construct that would not even fulfill the stated goal of prevention, because nothing would prevent the people from going straight from the testing to fuck an infected person and get infected with an STD, at which point is where it breaks down.

Inoculation is preventive measure worth something, because it provides active protection instead of just checking if a condition exists or not.

What part of this is so fucking hard to understand?

Edi

[Knife]

I don't understand, how is that a quible? "~1 in 16" = "6%" Admitedly its nearer 1 in 16.5 but I just find ~1 in 16 easier to visualise.

Statistically it's the damn same, so it's a quibble.

Er, firstly I've already sugetsed a way where you could test fewer than a hundred percent of the population and still track down a large percentage of the infected population. And secondly Ive already said that the reason I think that uninfected people should stand in line because it lowers the odds of them becoming infected in the future, because in my personal opinion an increace in the health of the overall population is benificial to the population as a whole. But prehaps that point of vew is just an upshot of living in a welfare state.

Forcing 94% of the population to stand in a line for basically nothing, will not lessen any odds of them getting an STD. If anything it will make the populace less likely to listen to actual sexual education and use programes like free condoms and the such.

I haven't got any stagering statistics. I agree that the only way the debate can be settled is by a scientific studdy, but I've looked online for a publicly available studdy and couldn't find one. If you have information available to you that I don't then please share, but untill we can see such a studdy all we can do is state our on opinions and own points of vew. I'm sorry if that insults you.

See, here's the problem, your position is that you feel that forcing a majority of people who statistically will not have a desease, to stand in mandatory lines to be tested by the goverment to see if they have a desease. Yet, you can not come up with a compelling reason why those 94% being troubled or inconvienenced is better than even the current system of 'if your sick, you go to the doc and he figures out why' or even the before mentioned programs of education, free condoms and even free screening for those who feel that they are at risk of having an STD.

I don't understand where this has come from. I thought we were talking about the benafits and drawbacks of manditory testing.

I've yet to see a benifit to it, while a couple of people have pointed out the drawbacks, and yet some people are still advocating it, with out showing a benifit.

And as for the aligation of trolling: I have posted in responce to direct questions. I have posted with my honest opinion and I have always atempted to provide facts and evidence to back up my opinion. I now ask: what elce can I do? and how is this breaking any of the forum rules? I apologise if I have broken any of the rules, but I have then please tell me so I can change the way I post.

I have yet to call you a troll, so don't quote my statments to refrute the charge. However, if you can't produce any reason- beyond 'testing everyone will cure everyone', as to why it would be benificial to force the entire population to be forced into a test, then atleast conceed before indeed someone does call you a troll.

[Wyrm]

Forcing 94% of the population to stand in a line for basically nothing, will not lessen any odds of them getting an STD. If anything it will make the populace less likely to listen to actual sexual education and use programes like free condoms and the such.

Let's not forget the false positive rate, which means that some portion of those 94% will receive a false diagnosis of being told they have an STD when in reality they do not. Multiply this by dozens of tests for different STDs, and the odds are not insignificant that some random healthy person will test positive for at least one of them.

[Broomstick]

But from grade 10 history,which was forever long ago, i remember these small pox vaccination shots and i believe these were mandatory.

Yes, they were. That's because smallpox was as contagious as the flu and had mortality rates (depending on the strain) between 30% and 90% Survivors were invariably deeply scarred, many suffered blindness or internal organ damage.

They were mandatory even in people at high risk of fatal side effects - as someone with a history of eczema and dermatitis I fall into the CDC's "do not vaccinate except under dire threat" category, but the small round scar on my upper left arm is proof that 40+ years ago risk of death by vaccine reaction would not get you out of the mandatory program. Nor was it a matter of the vaccinator being unifnormed - my parents recall that I had lots of rash at the time I got the jab.

In some instances army troops were used to go into communities and help forcibly vaccinate everyone. This was not limited to just one place but occured in locations spotted all over the globe. I'm sure some people had moral qualms about it, but it wasn't that much different from using troops to enforce smallpox quarantines.

On the upside - after all the fuss and bother, since 1978 no one in the world has caught smallpox. No more babies have died from bad reactions to vaccinia (although a few adults have).

Smallpox was a horrific enough disease to justify occassional draconisn measures to eliminate it once and for all. I can't think of a single STD that is equally contagious and horrible - HIV is closest, but its not nearly as contagious. An HIV infected person can live among others and interact with them without spreading the disease by following a few simple precautions - this is not possible with smallpox.

The other issue is that not all STD's are curable (HIV and herpes, for example) and even if you did, somehow, wipe them out some infections - such as herpes - are not exclusively transmitted by sex so reservoirs could survive to re-emerge as sexual infections later. Herpes-of-the-cold-sore being just one. Another is yeast infections - impossible to eliminate because you can pick up yeast from the general environment as well as your friends' genitals.

[Broomstick]

Anyone below age 14 wouldnt be checked.

What? People under 14 don't have sex? Children can't get STD's when molested by an adult?

What use is your "universal screening program" if it excludes such a large group that could, potentially, be infected?

Anyone above age X, 30-40 or something probably not at as much risk.

Uh... right. Because old farts don't have sex. There have been outbreaks of STD's in "retirement communities" to equal those in high schools and colleges.

Then you can cut out anyone who's a virgin.

Define "virgin"

As we all learned during the Clinton years, some people would say having oral sex wouldn't qualify as "real" sex - but it sure as hell can spread STDs. There are people who define "virgin" as "not vaginally penetrated" meaning a girl whose only had anal sex might be considered "still virgin" yet have an STD. If it's defined as "not penetrated at all" there's still the possibility of transmission during skin-to-skin contact during heavy petting.

And, oh yes, it's quite common for people to lie about viginity status. Maybe you don't - but others do.

So the mandatory range could be specific to more high-risk groups.

In which case this all becomes meaningless - in the end, you're back to the current system, where only those at high risk are looked at and the vast majority not tested.

I'm one of those people who think that doing this to save 100 people total from getting any STD. Is a pretty good reason to do it. I might be "troubling" 95-96% of the population, but if the results of saving 5-6%, of that same 95-96%, from STDs. Those people should be pretty damn happy.

Except that testing /= cure or prevention.

The act of testing can detect disease - but it does nothing to cure anything. That requires treatment. Also, for some STDs there is, in fact, no cure at all - HIV, herpes, HPV... but the symptoms of all of the above are notable enough that anyone willing to submit to mandatory testing and treatment would have gone to the doctor anyway.

[Talanth]

*sigh* I guess you're right, when it comes down to it all I have is my point of vew that the benifits, as I see them, outweigh the dificultys, again as I see them. And that is still my point of vew. I'm sure there have been studys done about the efectiveness of manditory testing but I just cant seem to find them! So I'll concede the point.

If I do find a study I'll post it here.