Page 345 of 946 FirstFirst ... 245295335341342343344345346347348349355395445845 ... LastLast
Results 6,881 to 6,900 of 18904

Thread: So coronavirus is definitely going to kill a few of us.

  1. #6881
    Gold gauchojake's Avatar
    Reputation
    583
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Zipolite
    Posts
    2,447
    Load Metric
    65722461
    Has anyone started taking nicotine and Pepcid for prep?????

  2. #6882
    Plutonium sonatine's Avatar
    Reputation
    7369
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    33,372
    Load Metric
    65722461
    Quote Originally Posted by nightmarefish View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sonatine View Post


    test pos for covid = perm ineligible for military service.


    just a flu tho, will likely disappear soon.
    Soooo how does this work when everyone has had it?

    a lot of geneva convention line items about automated warfare get revoked.
    "Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness." - Alejandro Jodorowsky

    "America is not so much a nightmare as a non-dream. The American non-dream is precisely a move to wipe the dream out of existence. The dream is a spontaneous happening and therefore dangerous to a control system set up by the non-dreamers." -- William S. Burroughs

  3. #6883
    Platinum Krypt's Avatar
    Reputation
    691
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Washington DC
    Posts
    4,286
    Load Metric
    65722461
    sonatine is this site’s best poster. Every poster, besides me, should be fetching this guy’s morning coffee and donut order.

     
    Comments
      
      sonatine: krypt cant be bothered with grunt work as we have SERIOUS POSTS to make

  4. #6884
    Diamond BCR's Avatar
    Reputation
    2014
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    6,869
    Load Metric
    65722461
    Quote Originally Posted by gauchojake View Post
    Has anyone started taking nicotine and Pepcid for prep?????
    I’m 100% serious. I’d post a picture if I knew how to do it and remove data. I grabbed a box of 21mg 28 patches when I read that study a week ago off Amazon. Sitting here on desk.

    Didn’t know the Pepcid part. I read about people using pulse oximeters when they caught virus to monitor their lungs and then couldn’t find one anywhere by the time I wanted to grab one. Still can’t find one on shelves. I didn’t even have a thermometer that worked and couldn’t find one and ended up snagging an extra from my dads place. Ran out of hand sanitizer. It’s basically been that every time I need something. It’s already hoarded. So when I read that story I looked and they were in stock so I grabbed a box in case there is anything to it.

    I figured if I lost my taste I’d slap one on and hope to fend it off. Worst case I wear a patch for a few days and it does nothing.

    If anyone here over 45 gets it and they are hoarded by then, hit me up and I’ll overnight it.

  5. #6885
    Gold gauchojake's Avatar
    Reputation
    583
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Zipolite
    Posts
    2,447
    Load Metric
    65722461
    Quote Originally Posted by BCR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gauchojake View Post
    Has anyone started taking nicotine and Pepcid for prep?????
    I’m 100% serious. I’d post a picture if I knew how to do it and remove data. I grabbed a box of 21mg 30 patches when I read that study a week ago off Amazon. Sitting here on desk.

    Didn’t know the Pepcid part. I read about people using pulse oximeters when they caught virus to monitor their lungs and then couldn’t find one anywhere by the time I wanted to grab one. Still can’t find one on shelves. I didn’t even have a thermometer that worked and couldn’t find one and ended up snagging an extra from my dads place. Ran out of hand sanitizer. It’s basically been that every time I need something. It’s already hoarded. So when I read that story I looked and they were in stock so I grabbed a box in case there is anything to it.

    I figured if I lost my taste I’d slap one on and hope to fend it off. Worst case I wear a patch for a few days and it does nothing.

    If anyone here over 45 gets it and they are hoarded by then, hit me up and I’ll overnight it.
    If you have a parent who has a Medicare Advantage plan with an optional supplemental OTC benefit, you can probably still order them from the catalog, but not for long.

    Pulse ox's you can probably find online now. Hand sanitizer is coming back to the market in spurts. Same with gloves and thermometers. The market prices for these items is up like 100% or more.

  6. #6886
    Platinum Krypt's Avatar
    Reputation
    691
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Washington DC
    Posts
    4,286
    Load Metric
    65722461
    no offense, but I can’t take you seriously as a person when your avatar is a cock standing on a basketball.

     
    Comments
      
      BCR: The lr

  7. #6887
    Diamond BCR's Avatar
    Reputation
    2014
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    6,869
    Load Metric
    65722461
    Quote Originally Posted by Krypt View Post
    no offense, but I can’t take you seriously as a person when your avatar is a cock standing on a basketball.
    Don’t hate on the elite of Northern London football teams.

  8. #6888
    Platinum Krypt's Avatar
    Reputation
    691
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Washington DC
    Posts
    4,286
    Load Metric
    65722461
    5-2 x2

  9. #6889
    Diamond Pro Zap_the_Fractions_Giraffe's Avatar
    Reputation
    1416
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    3,783
    Load Metric
    65722461
    it figures, i quit nicotine on the 17th of last month and I'm always pissed off and I'm already starting to get fat and now I'm gonna get COVID 19 and probably give it to all the hot chicks I fuck on the regular

     
    Comments
      
      BCR: Jayjami just quit too so you two can have sex and cough together when the rona gets you
      
      Jayjami: Cough together, fine. Sex together, not!

  10. #6890
    Platinum splitthis's Avatar
    Reputation
    907
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    At the Metroparks
    Posts
    4,660
    Load Metric
    65722461
    A 3 way circlejerk does not constitute brilliance. Remember hold each other’s cocks real right when old man Biden loses.
    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

    Ronald Reagan

  11. #6891
    Diamond BCR's Avatar
    Reputation
    2014
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    6,869
    Load Metric
    65722461
    Quote Originally Posted by gauchojake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by BCR View Post

    I’m 100% serious. I’d post a picture if I knew how to do it and remove data. I grabbed a box of 21mg 30 patches when I read that study a week ago off Amazon. Sitting here on desk.

    Didn’t know the Pepcid part. I read about people using pulse oximeters when they caught virus to monitor their lungs and then couldn’t find one anywhere by the time I wanted to grab one. Still can’t find one on shelves. I didn’t even have a thermometer that worked and couldn’t find one and ended up snagging an extra from my dads place. Ran out of hand sanitizer. It’s basically been that every time I need something. It’s already hoarded. So when I read that story I looked and they were in stock so I grabbed a box in case there is anything to it.

    I figured if I lost my taste I’d slap one on and hope to fend it off. Worst case I wear a patch for a few days and it does nothing.

    If anyone here over 45 gets it and they are hoarded by then, hit me up and I’ll overnight it.
    If you have a parent who has a Medicare Advantage plan with an optional supplemental OTC benefit, you can probably still order them from the catalog, but not for long.

    Pulse ox's you can probably find online now. Hand sanitizer is coming back to the market in spurts. Same with gloves and thermometers. The market prices for these items is up like 100% or more.

    Yeah I had access to a pulse. The girl I was seeing has a 10 year old with asthma, so if I got sick, I’d have had her drop it worst case. I didn’t want to take it unless I was already sick.

    I just wanted to buy one to have it and give it to her as an extra once this thing passes and they were back ordered weeks at the time and no where local had any. All the articles I read said the Chinese made ones were shit and to buy a pricier American one, so I’ll grab them now. Hers was made in China so I’ll probably order a couple as I wanted her to have better one. She wasn’t aware the Chinese ones were bad.

    I just saw everyone saying it was the only thing that kept them sane and not having panic attacks when they struggled to breathe when they’d see their oxygen was above 95 still. Just wanted to throw it in medicine cabinet in case.

    Have hand sanitizer again. Was out for a week. Wasn’t even sure if nicotine was any good after contacting. That study said active smokers were infected less, but I grabbed it anyway just in case. Wasn’t going to develop an addiction to nicotine again after twenty years preemptively. I wouldn’t prep with it unless someone around me got sick that I knew likely got me.

    Thx for info

     
    Comments
      
      Zap_the_Fractions_Giraffe: DUDE you're better off getting corona than having nicotine addiction fuck off that shit

  12. #6892
    Hurricane Expert tgull's Avatar
    Reputation
    410
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Jerry Got Game
    Posts
    4,744
    Load Metric
    65722461
    Quote Originally Posted by BCR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gauchojake View Post

    If you have a parent who has a Medicare Advantage plan with an optional supplemental OTC benefit, you can probably still order them from the catalog, but not for long.

    Pulse ox's you can probably find online now. Hand sanitizer is coming back to the market in spurts. Same with gloves and thermometers. The market prices for these items is up like 100% or more.

    Yeah I had access to a pulse. The girl I was seeing has a 10 year old with asthma, so if I got sick, I’d have had her drop it worst case. I didn’t want to take it unless I was already sick.

    I just wanted to buy one to have it and give it to her as an extra once this thing passes and they were back ordered weeks at the time and no where local had any. All the articles I read said the Chinese made ones were shit and to buy a pricier American one, so I’ll grab them now. Hers was made in China so I’ll probably order a couple as I wanted her to have better one. She wasn’t aware the Chinese ones were bad.

    I just saw everyone saying it was the only thing that kept them sane and not having panic attacks when they struggled to breathe when they’d see their oxygen was above 95 still. Just wanted to throw it in medicine cabinet in case.

    Have hand sanitizer again. Was out for a week. Wasn’t even sure if nicotine was any good after contacting. That study said active smokers were infected less, but I grabbed it anyway just in case. Wasn’t going to develop an addiction to nicotine again after twenty years preemptively. I wouldn’t prep with it unless someone around me got sick that I knew likely got me.

    Thx for info
    You God Dam Gunnies really make me laugh.

     
    Comments
      
      BCR: I’ll ship you some patches and Xanax if you get it. We need you for hurricane season. Saving lives is a bi-partisan effort

  13. #6893
    Platinum
    Reputation
    336
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,694
    Load Metric
    65722461
    You can download pulse oximeter apps onto your phone that use the camera. I don't know how accurate they are.

  14. #6894
    Diamond
    Reputation
    690
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    6,030
    Load Metric
    65722461
    This is from someone who is starting residency next month. Great news for doomsday ppl like split and tine


    Name:  20200507_005641.jpg
Views: 419
Size:  133.9 KB

  15. #6895
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    10110
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    54,627
    Blog Entries
    2
    Load Metric
    65722461
    Quote Originally Posted by gut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tgull View Post
    Social distancing looks like it has been an abject failure. Look at NYC, 73% of recent cases are from people staying home. This thing is going to run its course, we collectively are just delaying the inevitable.

    I am ready for the stock market to go up for sure, we need to re-open.

    If you believe that, then I'm sure you believed everyone who got HIV in 1983 who swore it could only have been from heterosexual sex.
    Funny you mention HIV, because I remember about 30 years ago I was annoyed with the government and media narrative that AIDS was a major threat to non-IV-drug-using heterosexual men. They knew it wasn't -- at least not in the US -- and a glance at the stats would quickly confirm that. However, they were not as easily available in those days because of no world wide web, and I had to count on catching the new case stats published in the LA Times. I finally cut those stats out and saved it, so I could show idiots at my college who really believed that "it's almost as dangerous for heterosexuals as it is for gays".

    The "AIDS is an epidemic for the average heterosexual male" tale was spun for various reasons:

    1) There was a desire to get public buy-in to increased funding to study AIDS cures and treatmemts. Many at the time looked down upon the gay population, and a large portion of the population believed homosexuality to be a choice. In 1990, many people felt the solution was just "don't be gay" or "stop having gay sex or using IV drugs", and that the disease wasn't worth spending big money studying. I actually agreed with the increased funding for studying AIDS, but it irked me that this was sold as "a disease which gravely threatens everyone" in order to get public support.

    2) AIDS was a threat to heterosexual women who had sex with gay/bisexual men. Since many gay and bisexual men were in the closet in 1990, some women had sex with gay/bi men and put themselves at risk without knowing it. These women were also at risk if they had sex with IV drug using men. Therefore, it was simple for the government/media to state that all heterosexuals were in danger, without clarifying that these women were only in danger if they had sex with men in one of these risk categories.

    3) Heterosexual men were the most powerful demographic in the country at the time, by a wide margin. If heterosexual men were made to believe that they'd be safe from Super AIDS unless they shot up drugs or banged other dudes, they would shrug their shoulders and stop caring about the disease, knowing it didn't affect them. In order to get buy-in from heterosexual men, they had to lie and tell them they were gravely at risk.

    Lots of stats were manipulated at the time to do this.

    For example, by 1990 the number of cases of gay men was shrinking, because of safer sex practices. At the same time, heterosexual female cases were slowly rising. The new cases from gay sex were still VASTLY outnumbering the new cases from hetero sex, by orders of magnitude, but the media was able to state, "Heterosexual females are the fastest growing group of new cases", and not be lying, while completely misleading everyone.

    I remember arguing about this in college with kids in my dorm. Most of them legit thought that hetero females were catching it more often than gay men by that point.

    I kept making the point, "Why not just tell the truth about the stats -- that it's mainly a disease of gay males and IV drug users -- but that these people are also human beings, and we need to find a way to help them?"

    Nobody liked this point. People on the right felt that it was a lifestyle disease and didn't deserve extra funding. People on the left believed it was a major threat to all of humanity, and that it was just right-wing manipulation to claim it was mostly a gay and IV-drug-user disease.

    But you know what? At least the stats were published in the newspaper. They were often buried in little-read pages, and the articles about AIDS at the time intentionally misled everyone, but at least you could find the stats if you wanted.

    This is even worse. We have both the false media/government narrative AND what seems to be an intentional lack of meaningful stats, beyond just some very raw numbers (such as number of deaths) which don't mean much on their own.

    The AIDS thing pissed me off 30 years ago because it was dishonest. I knew it was a serious matter and needed scientific attention, but the stories and statements about it were dishonest. However, at least I knew it wouldn't affect me. I wouldn't ever have gay sex, and I wasn't ever going to do intravenous drugs.

    This one bothers me more because it actually does affect me, and I just want to know the full truth.

  16. #6896
    Diamond
    Reputation
    476
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    6,894
    Load Metric
    65722461
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gut View Post


    If you believe that, then I'm sure you believed everyone who got HIV in 1983 who swore it could only have been from heterosexual sex.
    Funny you mention HIV, because I remember about 30 years ago I was annoyed with the government and media narrative that AIDS was a major threat to non-IV-drug-using heterosexual men. They knew it wasn't -- at least not in the US -- and a glance at the stats would quickly confirm that. However, they were not as easily available in those days because of no world wide web, and I had to count on catching the new case stats published in the LA Times. I finally cut those stats out and saved it, so I could show idiots at my college who really believed that "it's almost as dangerous for heterosexuals as it is for gays".

    The "AIDS is an epidemic for the average heterosexual male" tale was spun for various reasons:

    1) There was a desire to get public buy-in to increased funding to study AIDS cures and treatmemts. Many at the time looked down upon the gay population, and a large portion of the population believed homosexuality to be a choice. In 1990, many people felt the solution was just "don't be gay" or "stop having gay sex or using IV drugs", and that the disease wasn't worth spending big money studying. I actually agreed with the increased funding for studying AIDS, but it irked me that this was sold as "a disease which gravely threatens everyone" in order to get public support.

    2) AIDS was a threat to heterosexual women who had sex with gay/bisexual men. Since many gay and bisexual men were in the closet in 1990, some women had sex with gay/bi men and put themselves at risk without knowing it. These women were also at risk if they had sex with IV drug using men. Therefore, it was simple for the government/media to state that all heterosexuals were in danger, without clarifying that these women were only in danger if they had sex with men in one of these risk categories.

    3) Heterosexual men were the most powerful demographic in the country at the time, by a wide margin. If heterosexual men were made to believe that they'd be safe from Super AIDS unless they shot up drugs or banged other dudes, they would shrug their shoulders and stop caring about the disease, knowing it didn't affect them. In order to get buy-in from heterosexual men, they had to lie and tell them they were gravely at risk.

    Lots of stats were manipulated at the time to do this.

    For example, by 1990 the number of cases of gay men was shrinking, because of safer sex practices. At the same time, heterosexual female cases were slowly rising. The new cases from gay sex were still VASTLY outnumbering the new cases from hetero sex, by orders of magnitude, but the media was able to state, "Heterosexual females are the fastest growing group of new cases", and not be lying, while completely misleading everyone.

    I remember arguing about this in college with kids in my dorm. Most of them legit thought that hetero females were catching it more often than gay men by that point.

    I kept making the point, "Why not just tell the truth about the stats -- that it's mainly a disease of gay males and IV drug users -- but that these people are also human beings, and we need to find a way to help them?"

    Nobody liked this point. People on the right felt that it was a lifestyle disease and didn't deserve extra funding. People on the left believed it was a major threat to all of humanity, and that it was just right-wing manipulation to claim it was mostly a gay and IV-drug-user disease.

    But you know what? At least the stats were published in the newspaper. They were often buried in little-read pages, and the articles about AIDS at the time intentionally misled everyone, but at least you could find the stats if you wanted.

    This is even worse. We have both the false media/government narrative AND what seems to be an intentional lack of meaningful stats, beyond just some very raw numbers (such as number of deaths) which don't mean much on their own.

    The AIDS thing pissed me off 30 years ago because it was dishonest. I knew it was a serious matter and needed scientific attention, but the stories and statements about it were dishonest. However, at least I knew it wouldn't affect me. I wouldn't ever have gay sex, and I wasn't ever going to do intravenous drugs.

    This one bothers me more because it actually does affect me, and I just want to know the full truth.

    ya fr what was up with that, I remember watching the movie KIDS and thinking Casper immediately got it when he raped that passed out chick. evil scam

  17. #6897
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    10110
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    54,627
    Blog Entries
    2
    Load Metric
    65722461
    https://twitter.com/BarrettWilson6/status/1258144821048418305

    LOL media

    "You were prepared for that"

    So none of their questions are prepared?

     
    Comments
      
      TheXFactor: Cute Blond But She's Dumber Than Shit.
      
      MumblesBadly: You forget that when “the media” was making those statements, Trump had had intelligence briefings that contradicted those statements and didn’t share that information with the public!
      
      dwai: Mumbles offset

  18. #6898
    Gold Salty_Aus's Avatar
    Reputation
    283
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Gold Coast, QLD, Australia
    Posts
    1,691
    Load Metric
    65722461
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gut View Post


    If you believe that, then I'm sure you believed everyone who got HIV in 1983 who swore it could only have been from heterosexual sex.
    Funny you mention HIV, because I remember about 30 years ago I was annoyed with the government and media narrative that AIDS was a major threat to non-IV-drug-using heterosexual men. They knew it wasn't -- at least not in the US -- and a glance at the stats would quickly confirm that. However, they were not as easily available in those days because of no world wide web, and I had to count on catching the new case stats published in the LA Times. I finally cut those stats out and saved it, so I could show idiots at my college who really believed that "it's almost as dangerous for heterosexuals as it is for gays".

    The "AIDS is an epidemic for the average heterosexual male" tale was spun for various reasons:

    1) There was a desire to get public buy-in to increased funding to study AIDS cures and treatmemts. Many at the time looked down upon the gay population, and a large portion of the population believed homosexuality to be a choice. In 1990, many people felt the solution was just "don't be gay" or "stop having gay sex or using IV drugs", and that the disease wasn't worth spending big money studying. I actually agreed with the increased funding for studying AIDS, but it irked me that this was sold as "a disease which gravely threatens everyone" in order to get public support.

    2) AIDS was a threat to heterosexual women who had sex with gay/bisexual men. Since many gay and bisexual men were in the closet in 1990, some women had sex with gay/bi men and put themselves at risk without knowing it. These women were also at risk if they had sex with IV drug using men. Therefore, it was simple for the government/media to state that all heterosexuals were in danger, without clarifying that these women were only in danger if they had sex with men in one of these risk categories.

    3) Heterosexual men were the most powerful demographic in the country at the time, by a wide margin. If heterosexual men were made to believe that they'd be safe from Super AIDS unless they shot up drugs or banged other dudes, they would shrug their shoulders and stop caring about the disease, knowing it didn't affect them. In order to get buy-in from heterosexual men, they had to lie and tell them they were gravely at risk.

    Lots of stats were manipulated at the time to do this.

    For example, by 1990 the number of cases of gay men was shrinking, because of safer sex practices. At the same time, heterosexual female cases were slowly rising. The new cases from gay sex were still VASTLY outnumbering the new cases from hetero sex, by orders of magnitude, but the media was able to state, "Heterosexual females are the fastest growing group of new cases", and not be lying, while completely misleading everyone.

    I remember arguing about this in college with kids in my dorm. Most of them legit thought that hetero females were catching it more often than gay men by that point.

    I kept making the point, "Why not just tell the truth about the stats -- that it's mainly a disease of gay males and IV drug users -- but that these people are also human beings, and we need to find a way to help them?"

    Nobody liked this point. People on the right felt that it was a lifestyle disease and didn't deserve extra funding. People on the left believed it was a major threat to all of humanity, and that it was just right-wing manipulation to claim it was mostly a gay and IV-drug-user disease.

    But you know what? At least the stats were published in the newspaper. They were often buried in little-read pages, and the articles about AIDS at the time intentionally misled everyone, but at least you could find the stats if you wanted.

    This is even worse. We have both the false media/government narrative AND what seems to be an intentional lack of meaningful stats, beyond just some very raw numbers (such as number of deaths) which don't mean much on their own.

    The AIDS thing pissed me off 30 years ago because it was dishonest. I knew it was a serious matter and needed scientific attention, but the stories and statements about it were dishonest. However, at least I knew it wouldn't affect me. I wouldn't ever have gay sex, and I wasn't ever going to do intravenous drugs.

    This one bothers me more because it actually does affect me, and I just want to know the full truth.
    You really need to stop speaking for people on the left. Just about evertime you speak for the left you say utter garbage.

  19. #6899
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    10110
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    54,627
    Blog Entries
    2
    Load Metric
    65722461
    Quote Originally Posted by Salty_Aus View Post
    You really need to stop speaking for people on the left. Just about evertime you speak for the left you say utter garbage.
    Which part is "utter garbage"?

  20. #6900
    Diamond BCR's Avatar
    Reputation
    2014
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    6,869
    Load Metric
    65722461
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gut View Post


    If you believe that, then I'm sure you believed everyone who got HIV in 1983 who swore it could only have been from heterosexual sex.
    Funny you mention HIV, because I remember about 30 years ago I was annoyed with the government and media narrative that AIDS was a major threat to non-IV-drug-using heterosexual men. They knew it wasn't -- at least not in the US -- and a glance at the stats would quickly confirm that. However, they were not as easily available in those days because of no world wide web, and I had to count on catching the new case stats published in the LA Times. I finally cut those stats out and saved it, so I could show idiots at my college who really believed that "it's almost as dangerous for heterosexuals as it is for gays".

    The "AIDS is an epidemic for the average heterosexual male" tale was spun for various reasons:

    1) There was a desire to get public buy-in to increased funding to study AIDS cures and treatmemts. Many at the time looked down upon the gay population, and a large portion of the population believed homosexuality to be a choice. In 1990, many people felt the solution was just "don't be gay" or "stop having gay sex or using IV drugs", and that the disease wasn't worth spending big money studying. I actually agreed with the increased funding for studying AIDS, but it irked me that this was sold as "a disease which gravely threatens everyone" in order to get public support.

    2) AIDS was a threat to heterosexual women who had sex with gay/bisexual men. Since many gay and bisexual men were in the closet in 1990, some women had sex with gay/bi men and put themselves at risk without knowing it. These women were also at risk if they had sex with IV drug using men. Therefore, it was simple for the government/media to state that all heterosexuals were in danger, without clarifying that these women were only in danger if they had sex with men in one of these risk categories.

    3) Heterosexual men were the most powerful demographic in the country at the time, by a wide margin. If heterosexual men were made to believe that they'd be safe from Super AIDS unless they shot up drugs or banged other dudes, they would shrug their shoulders and stop caring about the disease, knowing it didn't affect them. In order to get buy-in from heterosexual men, they had to lie and tell them they were gravely at risk.

    Lots of stats were manipulated at the time to do this.

    For example, by 1990 the number of cases of gay men was shrinking, because of safer sex practices. At the same time, heterosexual female cases were slowly rising. The new cases from gay sex were still VASTLY outnumbering the new cases from hetero sex, by orders of magnitude, but the media was able to state, "Heterosexual females are the fastest growing group of new cases", and not be lying, while completely misleading everyone.

    I remember arguing about this in college with kids in my dorm. Most of them legit thought that hetero females were catching it more often than gay men by that point.

    I kept making the point, "Why not just tell the truth about the stats -- that it's mainly a disease of gay males and IV drug users -- but that these people are also human beings, and we need to find a way to help them?"

    Nobody liked this point. People on the right felt that it was a lifestyle disease and didn't deserve extra funding. People on the left believed it was a major threat to all of humanity, and that it was just right-wing manipulation to claim it was mostly a gay and IV-drug-user disease.

    But you know what? At least the stats were published in the newspaper. They were often buried in little-read pages, and the articles about AIDS at the time intentionally misled everyone, but at least you could find the stats if you wanted.

    This is even worse. We have both the false media/government narrative AND what seems to be an intentional lack of meaningful stats, beyond just some very raw numbers (such as number of deaths) which don't mean much on their own.

    The AIDS thing pissed me off 30 years ago because it was dishonest. I knew it was a serious matter and needed scientific attention, but the stories and statements about it were dishonest. However, at least I knew it wouldn't affect me. I wouldn't ever have gay sex, and I wasn't ever going to do intravenous drugs.

    This one bothers me more because it actually does affect me, and I just want to know the full truth.
    Campus life in 1990. I remember being irritated at the same shit because you had to convince every girl that you didn’t need a condom and you weren’t going to give her AIDS. I remember having conversations with actual girlfriends where I’d be saying,”do you think I’m secretly gay? No, well then you aren’t getting fucking AIDS from me unless you think I’m actually a fag.” The AIDS hysteria was the absolute worst because everyone knew it was a gay thing primarily, but they’d inundate you with it so much they had every girl convinced they were at risk. Everyone knew the truth, yet it was still a fear. Really annoying.

    I lived with my buddy I grew up with. We just constantly were fucking with each other because we were both ballbusters. I remember Ohio State had this office for GLAAD with all these colorful brochures printed out. Do you think you’ve been exposed to AIDS? How to tell your parents your gay. Shit like that.

    So I’d wait until no one was around and I’d grab a huge handful of those brochures and shove them in my backpack real fast, and then plant them in my buddy Patrick’s backpack. Throw a few in his trunk. Shove some under his bed. He had these sweaters rolled up and I’d unroll a few and shove a few in there. I can picture it like it was yesterday. Me sitting there and rolling them back up meticulously just like he did.

    He’d go to class and pull out a book and those brochures would come falling out. His girl would be in his bedroom and see the ones I shoved under his bed. Someone would throw something in his trunk and that shit was wadded up. He had no idea where I was getting them but I’d walk by that GLAAD office for my one class and kept grabbing more. I tortured him with those fucking brochures for an entire quarter. That was peak AIDS hysteria. Now I’d be ostracized and probably kicked out of school for homophobia, but just the hint of anything AIDS freaked everyone so badly that it was a great run for me killing him with that shit. It was the worst thing you could do to your buddy.

     
    Comments
      
      OSA: taking hope away from people who actually need it scumbag
    Last edited by BCR; 05-06-2020 at 11:16 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. KILL WILL
    By Yebsite in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-19-2024, 09:28 PM
  2. Going to kill the next person...
    By SetofKs in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-19-2018, 12:05 AM
  3. DID BOVADA JUST KILL ALL LHE ABOVE 3-6?
    By SetofKs in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-05-2018, 04:55 PM
  4. So if you were going to kill yourself...
    By BetCheckBet in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 04-05-2017, 11:28 PM
  5. Kill this whitey
    By Pooh in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 03-30-2014, 03:13 PM

Tags for this Thread