HIV: Are scare tactics useful anymore? (2 Viewers)

[kami]

In the past we've generally used scare campaigns as a way to generate aversion to certain activities and hopefully stem death and pain in the process like with the graphic anti-smoking stuff which seems to have worked. I'm wondering though, are the same tactics at all useful with STDs?

According to the Department of Health and Aging we're getting about 1000 new cases of HIV each year which is a huge rise when compared to the couple of hundred per year of the early to mid nineties. So this big bad OMG reaction to AIDS doesn't seem to really be having that kind of effect with the HIV/AIDS issue that it does with smoking, people are still fucking without protection and sharing needles.

Of course, we also come to the problem that promoting the knee jerk hysteric reaction only seems to stigmatise the HIV sufferer which is you know, unfair, especially when you consider that HIV sufferers now live fairly long lives (HIV as distinct from AIDS). So is there any point to using the knee jerk hysteric approach anymore? What kind of things would you do instead?

Here's France's approach to the problem, dunno if it actually works that well though:

[youtube]Suq0FhISbvQ[/youtube]

 

[Iron]

[youtube]U219eUIZ7Qo[/youtube]
Wasnt this, like, one of the most effective ads ever?

 

[kami]

[youtube]U219eUIZ7Qo[/youtube]
Wasnt this, like, one of the most effective ads ever?

I dunno if that approach is still working anymore though, maybe it did in '87 but with the rates of infection these days ...

 

[Iron]

Well im still here
woo baby class of 87 woo kway should really move this to l&ob woo moderator

 

[xeuyrawp]

Here's France's approach to the problem, dunno if it actually works that well though:

[youtube]Suq0FhISbvQ[/youtube]

I had nfi what it was on about until the explanation at the end. I like the approach, though.

 

[loquasagacious]

Well im still here
woo baby class of 87 woo kway should really move this to l&ob woo moderator

Don't really see how this is light and offbeat deals with a major health issue, well-referenced, intended to start a worthwhile debate... good thread imo.

Really gets to a fundamental problem with many health campaigns - how to push prevention messages without stigmatising sufferers. I think the only real way to do this is to operate two distinct communication strategies one emphasising prevention the other treatment. Tbh in this situation I think that preventing new cases is worth the risk.

Obviously though a prevention campaign would need to avoid creating a sort of 'no HIV in the swimming pool' mentality but still need to bring this issue back into the public consciousness because at present it is basically old news, forgotten but not gone.

 

[loquasagacious]

I had nfi what it was on about until the explanation at the end. I like the approach, though.

Nice approach but I don't know if it had much impact?

 

[kami]

I had nfi what it was on about until the explanation at the end. I like the approach, though.

Yeah, I didn't really get it at first either. They have a gay version too:

[youtube]tG9eMGrbtHA[/youtube]

 

[Iron]

Lol I mean it's funny and sort of sweet, but it's clearly encouraging promiscuity as a, idk, valid way to find 'true' love. Ofc, they dont talk and arent real people. Love is purely physical for the frogs, symbolised by the purely physical, yet almost sacred, frogskin they hold up as the instrument which offers the user happiness as long as they keep using it on various partners; at the end of the day, the - viewer - is - promised, - you will find true love and live happily ever after. If you dont use it, youll just be some lonely loser that gets laughed at by strangers for some reason.

So I dont care for this approach. Promiscuity isnt the answer at all - far from it! But there's this seedy commercial mechanism at work which, through various contraceptives, has acquired a financial interest in an anti-monogomous, anti-birth mentality in society. Makes me sick tbh.

More fire and brimstone, please

 

[Uncle]

suicide bombers kill more quickly.

 

[Iron]

Don't really see how this is light and offbeat deals with a major health issue, well-referenced, intended to start a worthwhile debate... good thread imo.

.

 

[kami]

Don't really see how this is light and offbeat deals with a major health issue, well-referenced, intended to start a worthwhile debate... good thread imo.

Really gets to a fundamental problem with many health campaigns - how to push prevention messages without stigmatising sufferers. I think the only real way to do this is to operate two distinct communication strategies one emphasising prevention the other treatment. Tbh in this situation I think that preventing new cases is worth the risk.

Obviously though a prevention campaign would need to avoid creating a sort of 'no HIV in the swimming pool' mentality but still need to bring this issue back into the public consciousness because at present it is basically old news, forgotten but not gone.

Well, I think this is distinct from the problems of other campaigns because the other campaigns distinctly stigmatise the risky activity but not the disease itself. Let's look at smoking for example - people are stigmatised for having a cigarette to some degree (which is useful) but cancer sufferers aren't stigmatised in the process. Campaigning for HIV prevention, however, has stigmatised the sufferers in an unfortunate way that's not really comparable with the problems associated with other campaigns.

Naturally this leads me to suggest that campaigns focus more on stigmatising the unsafe sex rather than the virus but ... I don't know. No one cares, really, and our culture even glorifies bare sex to some extent and the 'Safe sex, no regrets' campaigns have no impact on tat at all. For example, if you had sex with a girl you were dating, who was on the pill, would you hesitate for even one second to go without a condom or even feel concerned about it afterward?

Nice approach but I don't know if it had much impact?

Yeah, that's kind of my feeling too. I sort of feel like that approach is cool, as I was entertained, but I don't know if it had much, if any, impact.

 

[SylviaB]

Makes me sick tbh.

Oh boo fucking hoo. Live your own life and mind your own damn business.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Nice approach but I don't know if it had much impact?

Not sure. How would anyone know if it had an impact, really? I personally like it because it's positive (olol).

Ultimately, there's a point where nothing more can be done to stop an activity outside of legislating and enforcing against it.

 

[loquasagacious]

Not sure. How would anyone know if it had an impact, really? I personally like it because it's positive (olol).

Ultimately, there's a point where nothing more can be done to stop an activity outside of legislating and enforcing against it.

I agree that I liked the positive, and dare I say it realistic, messages On a personal level though it didn't make me any more likely to use condoms...

 

[Serius]

[youtube]U219eUIZ7Qo[/youtube]
Wasnt this, like, one of the most effective ads ever?

Whilst thats a classic, fantastic add...its very intellectually dishonest. The statistics say its pretty much only gays and IV drug users who have HIV and they tend to keep it in their own areas. How many babies and cute little white girls are actually getting aids in australia? It isnt impossible, but gays and IV drug users are the most at risk, easily thousands of times more likely to get it.

If you are a straight, white erm "non urban" non IV drug user, dont worry you wont be getting HIV.

If we are going to be wasting money on any kind of add campaign, best to target the biggest killers. Exercise takes care or lowers your chance of most of them, and the population responds well to them so yeah, more exercise programs!

 

[Iron]

Whilst thats a classic, fantastic add...its very intellectually dishonest. The statistics say its pretty much only gays and IV drug users who have HIV and they tend to keep it in their own areas. How many babies and cute little white girls are actually getting aids in australia? It isnt impossible, but gays and IV drug users are the most at risk, easily thousands of times more likely to get it.

If you are a straight, white erm "non urban" non IV drug user, dont worry you wont be getting HIV.

If we are going to be wasting money on any kind of add campaign, best to target the biggest killers. Exercise takes care or lowers your chance of most of them, and the population responds well to them so yeah, more exercise programs!

I thought that it was more honest than the French attempts because it admits that sticking to one partner is the best bet, whilst condoms are essentially plan b

 

[kami]

Whilst thats a classic, fantastic add...its very intellectually dishonest. The statistics say its pretty much only gays and IV drug users who have HIV and they tend to keep it in their own areas. How many babies and cute little white girls are actually getting aids in australia? It isnt impossible, but gays and IV drug users are the most at risk, easily thousands of times more likely to get it.

If you are a straight, white erm "non urban" non IV drug user, dont worry you wont be getting HIV.

If we are going to be wasting money on any kind of add campaign, best to target the biggest killers. Exercise takes care or lowers your chance of most of them, and the population responds well to them so yeah, more exercise programs!

Crock of shit, Serius.

Globally, including in developed countries, heterosexuals (non-drug using ones) are becoming far more prone to HIV than the niche groups who've been steadily reducing their infection rates. It's a growing trend in society due to the apathy toward STDs and this kind of attitude.

During the 90s Australia was one of the few exceptions where this situation is reversed however this is slowly changing especially among non citizens who are typically excluded from these statistics. Remember that it only takes one person who has been with someone who is infected, racial profiling and stereotypical views don't prevent infection and only distribute a stupid assumption that puts us all at risk and has been seen all over the world as making things worse.

 

[loquasagacious]

Case in point a map of sexual activity in a US highschool in one year.... nodes are people, gender colour coded and every line is sex.

 

[Serius]

Crock of shit, Serius.

Globally, including in developed countries, heterosexuals (non-drug using ones) are becoming far more prone to HIV than the niche groups who've been steadily reducing their infection rates. It's a growing trend in society due to the apathy toward STDs and this kind of attitude.

During the 90s Australia was one of the few exceptions where this situation is reversed however this is slowly changing especially among non citizens who are typically excluded from these statistics. Remember that it only takes one person who has been with someone who is infected, racial profiling and stereotypical views don't prevent infection and only distribute a stupid assumption that puts us all at risk and has been seen all over the world as making things worse.

Its more because of the numbers than anything, the gay community allready has a large, established population of HIV pos people. They also engage in riskier behaviour, anal sex is about 10x more likely to result in transmission than normal vaginal sex. IV drug use is also about 10x more likely to result in infection. Also females are more likely to get HIV than males, sex for a male with a HIV pos female is about half as risky as a female who has sex with a HIV pos male.

When you move in a community that has a large population of HIV pos people, who pretty much all engage in risky behaviour like anal sex, that also has a culture of casual, promiscuity then you are always going to be more at risk than people who dont.

Theres only about 18 000 people living in Australia with HIV, the vast majority of whom are gay or IV drug users, theres maybe 800 cases a year, the overwhelming majority of whom are gay men . HIV doesnt "target" gays or IV drug users, these people just engage in activity that is a lot riskier and makes it easier to transmit the virus.

BTW we arent talking globally here, an add campaign could only affect the results in Australia, so i am just talking nation wide. I stand by what i said, if you are a straight white male who doesnt use drugs, your chances of sleeping with someone who has HIV are astronomically low[theres only about 1000 women in Aus with it, and i would say most of those are junkies], and even if you do, your odds of being infected from that one encounter are about 1 in 2000.

I am not saying HIV isnt a big issue, but maybe we should be concentrating on bigger killers than that? heart disease for instance, or stroke...or hell, even depression is a bigger killer if you include suicide stats.