Restaurant has an Employee With HIV. Would You Eat There Knowing That?

[Amused]

Originally posted by: jonks
Where's the poll for "jesus christ I'm an ignorant fuck and think it's easy to get aids"

This poll is a nicely worded version of that.

 

[episodic]

It isn't the "AIDS" I'd be scared of. You can't really catch that.

This is what I'd worry about.

Hepatitis Rates in AIDS patients. This is very communicable in a restaurant setting.
http://letmegooglethatforyou.c...rates+in+aids+patients

Or
Tuberculosis Rates in AIDS patients. Some new TB isn't even treatable very easily anymore.
http://www.google.com/search?h...S+patients&btnG=Search

Or
Community Acquired MRSA in AIDS patients (Staph infections that can be deadly)

http://www.google.com/search?h...S+patients&btnG=Search

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: jonks
Where's the poll for "jesus christ I'm an ignorant fuck and think it's easy to get aids"

Unless the waiter serves you a bowl of blood and tells you it's tomato soup, you're safe.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think even if that happened you probably wouldn't get AIDS. I was under the impression it dies immediately after it is outside the body.

I suppose in that specific case the blood in the middle of the bowl might be ok for longer, but just the idea of a smearing of blood on your food I don't think you would get AIDS from it.

 

[oddyager]

Yes, I would have absolutely no problem eating there.

 

[Martin]

Well, any favourite restaurant of mine won't include places where I get served blood and semen... so yeah I'd be alright with it.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Holy Cow, I'm surprised at the results! :shocked:
Are people really that ignorant? Or are they really that irrational?

irrational and i fully admit it. i know damn well its damn well impossible.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Martin
Well, any favourite restaurant of mine won't include places where I get served blood and semen... so yeah I'd be alright with it.

they do..you just gotta pay extra for it! also its in the back room with the whips and chains!

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: episodic
It isn't the "AIDS" I'd be scared of. You can't really catch that.

This is what I'd worry about.

Hepatitis Rates in AIDS patients. This is very communicable in a restaurant setting.
http://letmegooglethatforyou.c...rates+in+aids+patients

Or
Tuberculosis Rates in AIDS patients. Some new TB isn't even treatable very easily anymore.
http://www.google.com/search?h...S+patients&btnG=Search

Or
Community Acquired MRSA in AIDS patients (Staph infections that can be deadly)

http://www.google.com/search?h...S+patients&btnG=Search

Still rather allarmist, considering this:

Federal health officials say there is no solid evidence to prove that H.I.V.- infected people are likelier to be infected with TB if exposed. They say that the tuberculosis bacterium, usually spread in droplets dispersed through the air by coughing, is not easy to catch.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...F936A25750C0A964958260

And the story is much the same for the others.

You are more of a danger to them than they are to you with these issues.

 

[finite automaton]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jonks
Where's the poll for "jesus christ I'm an ignorant fuck and think it's easy to get aids"

This poll is a nicely worded version of that.

I know that HIV can only be transferred via blood contact, and still would not eat there nor would I want my family eating there. Doctors are always finding new information on lots of different diseases. For all we know, there is a rare form of HIV that is transferable via mucus and can survive for x amount of time without a host.

Likely? No. But just trying to further explain my reasoning.

 

[imported_Imp]

Originally posted by: Martin
Well, any favourite restaurant of mine won't include places where I get served blood and semen... so yeah I'd be alright with it.

Well, if you want to be paranoid, you can take those "babes in KFC sink" and "pothead in Burger King sink", then extrapolate the number of unreported cases. Then you end up with piss, shit, spit, 'fluid' and lies all in one sitting when you touch the plate/food that was washed in there.

 

[episodic]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: episodic
It isn't the "AIDS" I'd be scared of. You can't really catch that.

This is what I'd worry about.

Hepatitis Rates in AIDS patients. This is very communicable in a restaurant setting.
http://letmegooglethatforyou.c...rates+in+aids+patients

Or
Tuberculosis Rates in AIDS patients. Some new TB isn't even treatable very easily anymore.
http://www.google.com/search?h...S+patients&btnG=Search

Or
Community Acquired MRSA in AIDS patients (Staph infections that can be deadly)

http://www.google.com/search?h...S+patients&btnG=Search

Still rather allarmist, considering this:

Federal health officials say there is no solid evidence to prove that H.I.V.- infected people are likelier to be infected with TB if exposed. They say that the tuberculosis bacterium, usually spread in droplets dispersed through the air by coughing, is not easy to catch.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...F936A25750C0A964958260

And the story is much the same for the others.

You are more of a danger to them than they are to you with these issues.

Ok so 2/3.

Here is something from Johns Hopkins Medicine website that would tend to disagree.
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org...ses/2008/10_14_08.html

And from the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7074298.stm

BTW I'd still eat at the restaurant - I just wanted to point out if I were to worry - it wouldn't be about the AIDS virus itself.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: finite automaton

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jonks
Where's the poll for "jesus christ I'm an ignorant fuck and think it's easy to get aids"

This poll is a nicely worded version of that.

I know that HIV can only be transferred via blood contact, and still would not eat there nor would I want my family eating there. Doctors are always finding new information on lots of different diseases. For all we know, there is a rare form of HIV that is transferable via mucus and can survive for x amount of time without a host.

Likely? No. But just trying to further explain my reasoning.

You can explain all you want, but your reasoning is based on no logic and is irrational.

If you could get it that way, you'd more than likely already have it.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Amused
Federal health officials say there is no solid evidence to prove that H.I.V.- infected people are likelier to be infected with TB if exposed. They say that the tuberculosis bacterium, usually spread in droplets dispersed through the air by coughing, is not easy to catch.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...F936A25750C0A964958260

Amused, you posted a 16-year old story from a time when HIV was still poorly understood.

I do research on TB diagnostic tests. However, I have not worked with the TB/HIV combination. Thus, I'll just forward you to the World Health Organization's FAQ sheet on the link.

It is estimated that one-third of the 40 million people living with HIV/AIDS worldwide are co-infected with TB. People with HIV are up to 50 times more likely to develop TB in a given year than HIV-negative people... The majority of people who are co-infected with both diseases live in sub-Saharan Africa.

There is an HIV/TB link, it just hasn't made it to the US yet. Luckilly we have the money to perform TB tests here, we do simple things to prevent TB like pasturize milk, and we have effective drugs that people can afford. All of those have kept TB quite minimal here. But times are changing. Drug resistant TB is really soaring. The new extensively drug-resistant TB strains kill you in under 20 days. In 6 weeks, cultures will show you how to treat your extensively drug-resistant TB. That means, you'll be dead a month before they know how to treat you.

That said, I don't think you'll catch TB from eating at a restaurant staffed by an HIV-positive person.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: episodic
It isn't the "AIDS" I'd be scared of. You can't really catch that.

This is what I'd worry about.

Hepatitis Rates in AIDS patients. This is very communicable in a restaurant setting.
http://letmegooglethatforyou.c...rates+in+aids+patients

Or
Tuberculosis Rates in AIDS patients. Some new TB isn't even treatable very easily anymore.
http://www.google.com/search?h...S+patients&btnG=Search

Or
Community Acquired MRSA in AIDS patients (Staph infections that can be deadly)

http://www.google.com/search?h...S+patients&btnG=Search

Still rather allarmist, considering this:

Federal health officials say there is no solid evidence to prove that H.I.V.- infected people are likelier to be infected with TB if exposed. They say that the tuberculosis bacterium, usually spread in droplets dispersed through the air by coughing, is not easy to catch.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...F936A25750C0A964958260

And the story is much the same for the others.

You are more of a danger to them than they are to you with these issues.

Ok so 2/3.

And PWAs with Hep-c or a staph infection wont be well enough to work. It kills/disables them that quickly.

You're much more likely to get hep-c from an HIV- person who has no symptoms and is a carrier than from an HIV+ person who presents with symptoms rather quickly.

 

[TehMac]

Depends what his job is. If he/she's serving, then no, I wouldn't mind, unless he/she spits in the food or something.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Holy Cow, I'm surprised at the results! :shocked:
Are people really that ignorant? Or are they really that irrational?

Actually, given the xenophobic nature of ATOT members, I'm surprised that the numbers of folks who wouldn't eat there isn't higher.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: CorCentral
If he cut himself and dropped a minute amount of blood into your food? All the while you had a cut on the inside of your mouth?

I gotta say, if I went to a restaurant where I was being served food covered in blood, I'd probably stop eating there regardless of the health of the people bleeding in my food. But maybe that's just me.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Amused
Federal health officials say there is no solid evidence to prove that H.I.V.- infected people are likelier to be infected with TB if exposed. They say that the tuberculosis bacterium, usually spread in droplets dispersed through the air by coughing, is not easy to catch.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...F936A25750C0A964958260

Amused, you posted a 16-year old story from a time when HIV was still poorly understood.

I do research on TB diagnostic tests. However, I have not worked with the TB/HIV combination. Thus, I'll just forward you to the World Health Organization's FAQ sheet on the link.

It is estimated that one-third of the 40 million people living with HIV/AIDS worldwide are co-infected with TB. People with HIV are up to 50 times more likely to develop TB in a given year than HIV-negative people... The majority of people who are co-infected with both diseases live in sub-Saharan Africa.

There is an HIV/TB link, it just hasn't made it to the US yet. Luckilly we have the money to perform TB tests here, we do simple things to prevent TB like pasturize milk, and we have effective drugs that people can afford. All of those have kept TB quite minimal here. But times are changing. Drug resistant TB is really soaring. The new extensively drug-resistant TB strains kill you in under 20 days. In 6 weeks, cultures will show you how to treat your extensively drug-resistant TB. That means, you'll be dead a month before they know how to treat you.

TB and HIV have always been a problem in third world nations where TB was already epidemic BEFORE the HIV crisis.

The fact remains that HIV+ people have more to fear from HIV- people when it comes to TB than the other way around.

 

[episodic]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Amused
Federal health officials say there is no solid evidence to prove that H.I.V.- infected people are likelier to be infected with TB if exposed. They say that the tuberculosis bacterium, usually spread in droplets dispersed through the air by coughing, is not easy to catch.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...F936A25750C0A964958260

Amused, you posted a 16-year old story from a time when HIV was still poorly understood.

I do research on TB diagnostic tests. However, I have not worked with the TB/HIV combination. Thus, I'll just forward you to the World Health Organization's FAQ sheet on the link.

It is estimated that one-third of the 40 million people living with HIV/AIDS worldwide are co-infected with TB. People with HIV are up to 50 times more likely to develop TB in a given year than HIV-negative people... The majority of people who are co-infected with both diseases live in sub-Saharan Africa.

There is an HIV/TB link, it just hasn't made it to the US yet. Luckilly we have the money to perform TB tests here, we do simple things to prevent TB like pasturize milk, and we have effective drugs that people can afford. All of those have kept TB quite minimal here. But times are changing. Drug resistant TB is really soaring. The new extensively drug-resistant TB strains kill you in under 20 days. In 6 weeks, cultures will show you how to treat your extensively drug-resistant TB. That means, you'll be dead a month before they know how to treat you.

TB and HIV have always been a problem in third world nations where TB was already epidemic BEFORE the HIV crisis.

The fact remains that HIV+ people have more to fear from HIV- people when it comes to TB than the other way around.

Amused - the whole rise of drug resistant TB is directly linked to AIDS. . . surely you don't deny that? The guy there even works in the field. . . Now I'm not saying it CAME from AIDS - just the rise is "linked to high rates of HIV infections in some areas". . .

 

[RapidSnail]

The immediate reaction from most people would be "Hell no!". I wonder if that's because they are "ignorant f*cks" or just because they are regular people who want to remain healthy and only know that HIV/AIDS is a deadly disease. I think the general knowledge is that the forms of transmission for many infectious diseases are "sex, needles, and body fluids." Not everyone understands the half-life properties or conducive living atmospheres of viruses.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: jonks
Where's the poll for "jesus christ I'm an ignorant fuck and think it's easy to get aids"

Unless the waiter serves you a bowl of blood and tells you it's tomato soup, you're safe.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think even if that happened you probably wouldn't get AIDS. I was under the impression it dies immediately after it is outside the body.

I suppose in that specific case the blood in the middle of the bowl might be ok for longer, but just the idea of a smearing of blood on your food I don't think you would get AIDS from it.

It dies quickly outside the body, but not immediately. If you have open sores in your mouth then taking a nice big mouthful of Aidsoup could possibly infect you. So, like i said, aoivd ingesting bowls of aids blood. Probably best to avoid restaurants that serve bowls of blood, aids infected or no.

 

[finite automaton]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: finite automaton

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jonks
Where's the poll for "jesus christ I'm an ignorant fuck and think it's easy to get aids"

This poll is a nicely worded version of that.

I know that HIV can only be transferred via blood contact, and still would not eat there nor would I want my family eating there. Doctors are always finding new information on lots of different diseases. For all we know, there is a rare form of HIV that is transferable via mucus and can survive for x amount of time without a host.

Likely? No. But just trying to further explain my reasoning.

You can explain all you want, but your reasoning is based on no logic and is irrational.

If you could get it that way, you'd more than likely already have it.

Irrational how? Do you believe everything people tell you? I'd rather not even have to think about it.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: episodic
Amused - the whole rise of drug resistant TB is directly linked to AIDS. . . surely you don't deny that? The guy there even works in the field. . .

I wouldn't go that far.

I believe that the rise of drug-resistant TB is mostly due to economics. To successfully treat standard TB, you need 6-12 months of drugs. Skip one day and the chance of developing multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB) skyrockets. And since there is a good chance for single drug-resistant TB (it requires as little as one DNA base mutation), people are usually prescribed a drug cocktail. For example, you can take pills for Rifampin and Isoniazid for a year and probably control your TB (generally you just put it into the inactive form in your body instead of truely eradicating it). The thing is, people in resource-poor nations can barely afford one day of a drug cocktail, let alone a year. The number of people that stay on the proper drug treatment course is very small.

If you have MDR-TB, then the next line of drugs require daily injections. Think 6-12 months in the hospital. Tell me, how many resource-poor citizens can afford that? Virtually none. Skip some of your medications there and you now have a great chance of developing XDR-TB (extensively or extremely drug-resistant). When that happens, you pretty much die. There are a few drugs left, but no one in resource-poor nations can afford them.

AIDS may play a role here, but economics plays a far bigger role. Also human nature plays a bigger role, it is easy to forget or purposely skip a pill (especially if the drug cocktail makes you feel awful).

But, like I said above, someone with HIV and drug-resistant TB is probably NOT making food in your restaurants. It isn't something that I'd fear.

 

[geno]

I am floored at the results of this poll. The fact that it's close to 50/50 shows just how ignorant and scared so many people are.

 

[geno]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Are people really that ignorant? Or are they really that irrational?

Yes.