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

[episodic]

Originally posted by: 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.

That is the reason I said I'd still eat there.

If you want to go economics - in most countries the AIDS crisis could also be linked to economics as well. Most crisis like this do boil down to that . . .

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: 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.

By your logic you shouldn't leave your house because doctors are always finding new things. By your logic this would be smart because doctors are always finding new diseases, who knows maybe a new airborne killer is out there so now you wear a facemask. Also you buy a shotgun, because new species of animals are always being discovered and a yeti just might attack you and your children.

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: 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.

By your logic you shouldn't leave your house because doctors are always finding new things. By your logic this would be smart because doctors are always finding new diseases, who knows maybe a new airborne killer is out there so now you wear a facemask. Also you buy a shotgun, because new species of animals are always being discovered and a yeti just might attack you and your children.

If you knew about the yeti, then the have already been discovered.

 

[manowar821]

I don't see what there is to worry about.

 

[finite automaton]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: 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.

By your logic you shouldn't leave your house because doctors are always finding new things. By your logic this would be smart because doctors are always finding new diseases, who knows maybe a new airborne killer is out there so now you wear a facemask. Also you buy a shotgun, because new species of animals are always being discovered and a yeti just might attack you and your children.

There are risks I am willing to take and risks that I am not. Eating at a restaurant with one or more employees being known to have HIV is not a risk I am willing to take. Mind you, I am fully aware of the near impossible chance of getting HIV.

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: finite automaton

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: 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.

By your logic you shouldn't leave your house because doctors are always finding new things. By your logic this would be smart because doctors are always finding new diseases, who knows maybe a new airborne killer is out there so now you wear a facemask. Also you buy a shotgun, because new species of animals are always being discovered and a yeti just might attack you and your children.

There are risks I am willing to take and risks that I am not. Eating at a restaurant with one or more employees being known to have HIV is not a risk I am willing to take. Mind you, I am fully aware of the near impossible chance of getting HIV.

But why not?

 

[finite automaton]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: finite automaton

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: 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.

By your logic you shouldn't leave your house because doctors are always finding new things. By your logic this would be smart because doctors are always finding new diseases, who knows maybe a new airborne killer is out there so now you wear a facemask. Also you buy a shotgun, because new species of animals are always being discovered and a yeti just might attack you and your children.

There are risks I am willing to take and risks that I am not. Eating at a restaurant with one or more employees being known to have HIV is not a risk I am willing to take. Mind you, I am fully aware of the near impossible chance of getting HIV.

But why not?

Consider me a HIVophobe.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: finite automaton
Consider me a HIVophobe.

I didn't want to tell you this, but I sprayed your keyboard and mouse with aids.

 

[goog40]

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.

Surely you've eaten at Denny's before.

 

[Jschmuck2]

No, I would have no issue with that and if you do, you're foolish.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Amused
You discover a local restaurant you absolutely love has an employee living with HIV.

Would you still eat there?

FIXED the POLL. Vote again. My poll was misleading

yes i would. anyone who says otherwise is ignorant, and has no idea how AIDS is transmitted.
there could be someone with AIDS working at any given restaurant you frequent without you ever knowing.

also, i put my (gloved) hands in the mouths of people with HIV due to my job. some admit they have HIV and i know beforehand, some likely don't admit it, and some may not even know they have it.

i feel totally confident that i will not be infected because i use proper protocol with every patient whether they tell me they have HIV or not. as far as i'm concerned they all potentially have it.

 

[Chiropteran]

I wouldn't. By eating at such a restaurant, you are indirectly supporting a person with aids, allowing him to live longer, which increases the chance they he/she may spread the disease further.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

The 1980s called they want their poll back.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran
I wouldn't. By eating at such a restaurant, you are indirectly supporting a person with aids, allowing him to live longer, which increases the chance they he/she may spread the disease further.

i would bet money you've eaten at restaurants where an employee has HIV. you can't tell someone has HIV by looking at them.

you better go get tested. :Q

 

[Baked]

I would keep eating there if I don't know. If I know, I would stop eating there. It's like eating out. You might suspect the food preparation's disgusting, but you don't know for sure, so you have no problem eating the food. If you see the waiter spit in your food, you wouldn't eat it. So I voted no.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: finite automaton

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: finite automaton

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: 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.

By your logic you shouldn't leave your house because doctors are always finding new things. By your logic this would be smart because doctors are always finding new diseases, who knows maybe a new airborne killer is out there so now you wear a facemask. Also you buy a shotgun, because new species of animals are always being discovered and a yeti just might attack you and your children.

There are risks I am willing to take and risks that I am not. Eating at a restaurant with one or more employees being known to have HIV is not a risk I am willing to take. Mind you, I am fully aware of the near impossible chance of getting HIV.

But why not?

Consider me a HIVophobe.

do you eat out at restaurants at all? how about the fork you used. the last person who used it might've been HIV+ :Q

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: AyashiKaibutsu
The 1980s called they want their poll back.

Yep. It's amazing how fscking ignorant people are.

I have worked with, bathed, cleaned up after, ate with, been cooked for, drank after, kissed and been kissed by countless HIV+ people over the last 20 years. Not once did I fear infection, nor am I infected. How HIV is transmitted is very limited and very clear cut. It must be literally injected into the blood stream, either by sex or needles or in extremely rare cases, catstrophic accidents.

There is no risk, folks.

Now you know why millions of HIV positive people choose to conceal their illness from most, if not all people. It's the only way they can hope to have any kind of normal life... which is sad in this day and age. Everyone should know better by now, but obviously they do not.

Heads up folks: You come in contact with HIV positive people all the time. The only way to avoid being served by them in virtually every industry and everywhere you go is to lock yourself in your house.

This is why the first thing I tell every newly diagnosed person to not wear their status on their sleeves, and to take a long time considering who they think they should tell. Many end up telling no one except loved ones. And I don't blame them one bit.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Chiropteran
I wouldn't. By eating at such a restaurant, you are indirectly supporting a person with aids, allowing him to live longer, which increases the chance they he/she may spread the disease further.

i would bet money you've eaten at restaurants where an employee has HIV. you can't tell someone has HIV by looking at them.

you better go get tested. :Q

I wasn't suggesting they would spread the disease in the restaurant. They would spread the disease through the usual means- sex, needle sharing, etc. If they are gainfully employed they will live longer and thus have an increased chance of running into a situation where they could spread AIDS further. If they aren't, they will die quicker and the disease will die with them.

 

[TheAdvocate]

This is a poor question as to the topic of AIDS. It's undermined by the risk/reward issue. Fact is, that the "reward" of eating at any particular restaurant, especially considering the real lack of uniqueness in any dining experience, is outweighed by even a .00000000000000000001% risk of contracting a terminal disease.

Even if you know it's a longshot, I'd rather just get a steak or seafood at the next place down the street. (where you get to expose yourself to plenty of less lethal goodies).

 

[RKS]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
This is a poor question as to the topic of AIDS. It's undermined by the risk/reward issue. Fact is, that the "reward" of eating at any particular restaurant, especially considering the real lack of uniqueness in any dining experience, is outweighed by even a .00000000000000000001% risk of contracting a terminal disease.

Even if you know it's a longshot, I'd rather just get a steak or seafood at the next place down the street. (where you get to expose yourself to plenty of less lethal goodies).

The problem being you have no idea who had HIV or where so it's best to stay in a bubble.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Chiropteran
I wouldn't. By eating at such a restaurant, you are indirectly supporting a person with aids, allowing him to live longer, which increases the chance they he/she may spread the disease further.

i would bet money you've eaten at restaurants where an employee has HIV. you can't tell someone has HIV by looking at them.

you better go get tested. :Q

I wasn't suggesting they would spread the disease in the restaurant. They would spread the disease through the usual means- sex, needle sharing, etc. If they are gainfully employed they will live longer and thus have an increased chance of running into a situation where they could spread AIDS further. If they aren't, they will die quicker and the disease will die with them.

Well, hopefully your blind, hateful, ignorant fscking stupidity will lead to the same fate for you.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

You're much much more likely to get hepatitis than AIDS. AIDS doesn't survive outside of the body for very long.

 

[finite automaton]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: finite automaton

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: finite automaton

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: 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.

By your logic you shouldn't leave your house because doctors are always finding new things. By your logic this would be smart because doctors are always finding new diseases, who knows maybe a new airborne killer is out there so now you wear a facemask. Also you buy a shotgun, because new species of animals are always being discovered and a yeti just might attack you and your children.

There are risks I am willing to take and risks that I am not. Eating at a restaurant with one or more employees being known to have HIV is not a risk I am willing to take. Mind you, I am fully aware of the near impossible chance of getting HIV.

But why not?

Consider me a HIVophobe.

do you eat out at restaurants at all? how about the fork you used. the last person who used it might've been HIV+ :Q

You bring up a good point. Fuck.

Edit: I also don't appreciate being referred to as ignorant when I am simply contributing my opinion to a thread that is asking for everyone's opinion. What makes your opinion better than mine? Because it's a fact that HIV can only be transmitted via blood contact? Ok. So it doesn't even cross your mind that by putting yourself in close proximity with someone with HIV, you are increaseing the likely hood of putting yourself in a situation that puts you at risk. For example, mosh. I don't know what kind of patients she deals with but what if she is bit by someone with HIV? That's not a situation I'd like to be in.

 

[imported_Imp]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Chiropteran
I wouldn't. By eating at such a restaurant, you are indirectly supporting a person with aids, allowing him to live longer, which increases the chance they he/she may spread the disease further.

i would bet money you've eaten at restaurants where an employee has HIV. you can't tell someone has HIV by looking at them.

you better go get tested. :Q

I wasn't suggesting they would spread the disease in the restaurant. They would spread the disease through the usual means- sex, needle sharing, etc. If they are gainfully employed they will live longer and thus have an increased chance of running into a situation where they could spread AIDS further. If they aren't, they will die quicker and the disease will die with them.

So, you are suggesting some type of social-AIDs Darwinism. All the rich people (possibly ones with sugar daddies/mommies), who gets lots and lots of ass, have AIDs and spread it will be A-ok to procreate and spread. Meanwhile, the poor bastards who gets lots of ass will be forced to die quicker. All cause they didn't marry rich or 'make it' on their own. Ok, ya, ok there man...

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: Imp
So, you are suggesting some type of social-AIDs Darwinism. All the rich people (possibly ones with sugar daddies/mommies), who gets lots and lots of ass, have AIDs and spread it will be A-ok to procreate and spread. Meanwhile, the poor bastards who gets lots of ass will be forced to die quicker. All cause they didn't marry rich or 'make it' on their own. Ok, ya, ok there man...

No. I just see two possibilities:

I can personally support someone who has AIDS, knowing he may in the future spread it and cause additional pain and death.

-or-

I could not support them. Maybe like you say they are rich so the lack of a job doesn't affect them, or maybe they aren't but the other posters in this thread who love to feel sorry for AIDS victims will be enough to keep them going, but at least I won't feel bad when they spread the disease further and kill more people, because I am not responsible for those deaths- the people who supported the AIDS victim are.