In Albert-Laszlo Barabasi's reading for last week, he uses several examples to illustrate the presence of viruses and fads in our culture. He discusses everything from early corn hybrids in Iowa to computer viruses to the AIDS epidemic. Along the way, he says that there are specific people in society called hubs that function to spread a fad or virus to many other people. In the case of the AIDS epidemic, Barbasi discusses the hubs that were responsible for spreading the HIV virus to tens or hundreds of people. Gaetan Dugas, patient zero, was known to have about 250 partners, no doubt functioning as a hub to easily spread the virus to many other men. Barbasi then goes on to describe how he thinks that "as long as rescources are finite we should treat only the hubs." What?
First of all, there is no treatment that is going to prevent the spread of the virus from one person to another. Maybe, then, Barbasi was talking hypothetically, about a time in the future when a cure becomes available. But alas, he states that "despite the several-billion-dollars-strong international fund, there will not be enough money to buy treatments for everyone, even at cost. (referring to programs offered by drug companies) So who gets them?" So it seems quite clear that he is taking about the situation now when the only treatments we have do minimize viral count and prolong livlihood, but they don't stop transmission. Furthermore, I think that appropriating money to AIDS patient hubs alone is like rewarding their behavior of spreading the virus, rather than treating the problem at hand which is their disrespect for stopping the spread of it. Sure the hub theory works well for other situations, but contrary to what Barbasi and those researchers cited in the text believe, treatment of only the hubs with HIV is a mistake and has not been too well thought out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree with your point that it seems pretty damn unfair to treat only the Hubs of the AIDS epidemic. This is especially true, since they are the ones causing most of the problem. On the other hand though, treating them would probably be the most effective treatment, since they are so active. And if not every can get the treatment, maybe the hubs are the best place to start.
I also agree with you and Bobby. I believe it is unfair, but if that's the most effective way to halt the spread of the disease, isn't it the best way? I know TV isn't accurate, but the hot topic of many crime dramas lately have been prosecuting people who purposely spread HIV. I was surprised that there was someone who ACTUALLY did this.
I never really thought about a person purposely spreading HIV! That is so horrible. In that case the person probably doesn't want to get the vaccine necessarily. If people know they will get treatment the more they spread the disease than that gives them initiative to start having more partners right? I mean, you would have to be really selfish to do that, but I think people can get pretty desperate.
Post a Comment