HIV diagnoses rose again last year with 508 new cases

DeSarge

THE NUMBER OF new HIV diagnoses in Ireland jumped 5% in 2016 with 508 new cases detected.
According to new figures from the Health Protection Surveillance Centre two thirds of the new cases are people who were freshly diagnosed with the virus while the remainder are people who arrived in Ireland with a previous diagnoses.

Just over half of the diagnoses were among men who have sex with men (MSM). This is the largest number of diagnoses ever reported in that grouping.

42% of the group had previously been diagnosed abroad and they were transferring their care to Ireland.
There were 140 heterosexual people (28%) diagnosed with the virus. Nearly two thirds of those cases were among people born in sub-Saharan Africa.

The report notes that these people presented later in their infection than all other groups and additional strategies are “urgently needed” to reduce the number of people from sub-Saharan Africa presenting with late diagnosis.

“Further work is required in particular to reduce late presentations in heterosexually acquired infection”, said Dr Fiona Lyons, Clinical Lead for the HSE Sexual Health and Crisis Pregnancy Programme.

This is worrying, considering that HIV transmission rates are down in other developed countries. More education needed, at schools yes, but also through publicity campaigns in colleges and in general too.

Harry Palmr

Ah right, a foreigners out thread is it?

Grayson

They took our HIV!

Anita Blow

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Ah right, a foreigners out thread is it?

I mean nothing in his post suggested anything like that?
But it's clear you picked up on an important point that nearly half of our new diagnoses are those with a pre-existing diagnosis from abroad which is an important point, regardless of your attempt to shut down discussion of it before it has even started.
Anti-retroviral therapy is an expensive endeavour after-all and NICE had previously advised on a recent trend of delaying starting therapy in newly diagnosed in the UK because the funding wasn't there to start people on the drugs immediately.

Doltanian

I read about this recently over in the LGBT Forum here, most of the increase is attributed to South American primarily Brazilian gay men recently arrived into Ireland. The vast majority of HIV cases involve foreigners, gay men and drug injecting addicts. As a Heterosexual white Irish person the infection rates are very low.

A Little Pony

The elephant in the room not been touched upon yet..

Doltanian

Nebel wrote: »

I blame GrindrTinder.

FYP

Hande hoche!

Replace the fluoride in the water with PrEP.

I think *part* of the answer is that the revolution in HIV therapies are a victim of their own success.

I'd rather have HIV than Diabetes. In fact, I'd sign over all my possessions and whatever bit of savings I have to contract HIV over diabetes.

You catch HIV, you take one pill for the rest of your life, and generally, that's the end of it.

I don't think people need to be better-educated at all. I think most young people, especially those in the higher-risk categories, know perfectly well that the consequences can no longer be described as 'dire', or anything near it.

Is that irresponsible? Of course

They're right though. It isn't the end of the world.

The_Valeyard

A Little Pony wrote: »

The elephant in the room not been touched upon yet..

The elephant has aids.

Hammer89

It's those Dealz condoms - telling ye. They snap quicker than Russll Crowe.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

HIV is literally the one thing I'd prefer death over. I don't care if that's not a PC statement to make but it's how it is. I wouldn't want anything to do with anyone who had it either, it would def be a deal breaker in a relationship.

Peregrine

LexieOnRale wrote: »

HIV is literally the one thing I'd prefer death over. I don't care if that's not a PC statement to make but it's how it is. I wouldn't want anything to do with anyone who had it either, it would def be a deal breaker in a relationship.

Really? It's a manageable enough infection once treated early and properly and you could expect to live a long life. Fair enough that you don't want to be with someone who has it but I find it bizarre that you'd prefer death over a treatable infection.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Peregrine wrote: »

Really? It's a manageable enough infection once treated early and properly and you could expect to live a long life. Fair enough that you don't want to be with someone who has it but I find it bizarre that you'd prefer death over a treatable infection.

Can't describe it. It's an irrational fear. I was so morbidly curious on it I did my thesis on it and it only fuelled the fear. I have no doubt people live long and good lives with it but I couldn't think of anything worse. I know it's not rational but I'm not going to lie and say oh I wouldn't mind it'd be fine, because to me it wouldn't be.

JupiterKid

I am of the generation that grew up in the 1980s and well remember the terrifying public awareness adverts about the AIDS crisis. And it was a real crisis back then - a HIV diagnosis was literally a death sentence. I was terrified about getting HIV as a young gay man exploring my sexuality in my college years. I fooled around but was always safe except for one drunken time where I got tested afterwards and was terrified that I might have been infected. The sheer relief at the negative result I will never forget. I get tested every year.

Now, there is a generation of young gay guys who have never known the climate of pure fear in those early days. The breakthrough in treatment in the late 1990s was terrific but it did create a culture of complacency. There are even some guys who actively seek to get infected through unsafe sex - I don't know if it's due to intensely low self-esteem or some messed up thinking but it's worrying and sad.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

It's called pozzing or "giving the gift". From looking into it it seems to be big in America because the government provide steroids to help treat it and its a good way to bulk up and improve your appearance. There are sex parties held where one person (hiv pos) is invited and nobody knows who the gift giver is so they sleep with each other hoping they're with the pos, hence pozzing.

Ulysses Gaze

LexieOnRale wrote: »

It's called pozzing or "giving the gift". From looking into it it seems to be big in America because the government provide steroids to help treat it and its a good way to bulk up and improve your appearance. There are sex parties held where one person (hiv pos) is invited and nobody knows who the gift giver is so they sleep with each other hoping they're with the pos, hence pozzing.

I remember reading about this before and thinking "why in the name of hell would anyone want to do that?"

Wesser

Is diagnoses now the plural of diagnosis?

I thought diagnoses was a verb ......

Wesser

Is diagnoses now the plural of diagnosis?

I thought diagnoses was a verb ......

Burial.

Unsurprising tbh consider in general people are using condoms less and people have more sexual partners now. I remember having a chat with some fella and he said if a lad has sex with over 10 women there's a very strong chance he's got herpes. I'm amazed at how some of my buddies have gotten away without catching anything as none of them carry condoms around with them. I always ask the aul doll I'm with if she's on birth control but regardless I'll always wrap up for STDs and for pregnancy.

I've heard about that pozzing thing. There was some thread on reddit about the most f*cked up thing you've seen on the Internet and it was some forum dating back like a decade ago where people would post a thread saying what diseases they had and people would comment how aroused they were and wanted to be infected by them. There was even detailed stories play by play of people getting infected...proper erotic story sh*t. People commenting how the thought of all these diseases 'swimming' around them was better than the sex itself. Absolutely bizarre.

JupiterKid

LexieOnRale wrote: »

It's called pozzing or "giving the gift". From looking into it it seems to be big in America because the government provide steroids to help treat it and its a good way to bulk up and improve your appearance. There are sex parties held where one person (hiv pos) is invited and nobody knows who the gift giver is so they sleep with each other hoping they're with the pos, hence pozzing.

And it's sad and very disturbing. Sure, by all means have wild fun at sex parties but play safe.

Outlaw Pete

LexieOnRale wrote: »

It's called pozzing or "giving the gift". From looking into it it seems to be big in America because the government provide steroids to help treat it and its a good way to bulk up and improve your appearance. There are sex parties held where one person (hiv pos) is invited and nobody knows who the gift giver is so they sleep with each other hoping they're with the pos, hence pozzing.

What in the suffering fcuk? Seriously? Ron Woodroof must be looking down thinking what the hell is wrong with people today.

EDIT: Found the following docu on it and will give it a watch now. Never heard of 'bugchasing' before. What a world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN4w8e432_o

_Dara_

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I think *part* of the answer is that the revolution in HIV therapies are a victim of their own success.

I'd rather have HIV than Diabetes. In fact, I'd sign over all my possessions and whatever bit of savings I have to contract HIV over diabetes.

You catch HIV, you take one pill for the rest of your life, and generally, that's the end of it.

I don't think people need to be better-educated at all. I think most young people, especially those in the higher-risk categories, know perfectly well that the consequences can no longer be described as 'dire', or anything near it.

Is that irresponsible? Of course

They're right though. It isn't the end of the world.

Medications to manage HIV come with bad side effects including heart disease and issues with adiposity, as well as daily issues that can wear you down like fatigue. So yeah, you'll take only one pill for the rest of your life but it'll be a shortened life most likely. Who'd be blasé about that?

I wouldn't want either HIV or diabetes. As someone who has a well-managed chronic disease (as well as cancer, which is another story) I'd be very happy to not have that chronic disease because the flare ups are still nasty and painful.

bob50

Prep and PEP treatments.

PrEP is a drug you need to take long term 1/2 tabs every day and this will proctect men who have unsafe sex with other men i.e no condom used

But its not avialable here in Ireland Its widely given in the usa and Scotland on prescription

Its also on trial in London where some clinics there are given to men who engage in the unsafe sex.

And its been a lifesaver Also the rates of HIV infection have fallen in these places

PEP is post expsoure where you take a cocktail of drugs for approx 7/10 days
If you thnk you have been exposed to HIV but it must be taken within 72 hours of sex if you feel you were exposed

The HSE needs to advertise these options so that guys are aware of these options

Dr Brown

If anal sex was banned HIV would disappear.

AnneFrank

Dr Brown wrote: »

If anal sex was banned HIV would disappear.

Haha the irony of your name

_Dara_

Dr Brown wrote: »

If anal sex was banned HIV would disappear.

Er, nope. Intravenous drug use is a big cause of its spread too. And heterosexual people spread it too, just not as easily. Basically anal sex is a bit rougher, causing more tearing that can aid its spread. Are you saying heterosexual people never do anal? Male gay sex is anal so, yeah, that group is more susceptible. But there are other means of transmission. A guy who has got it by some other means can pass it to a woman both vaginally and anally. One of the first documented cases of HIV was in a heterosexual Norwegian sailor who picked it up in West Africa.

Uriel.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

What in the suffering fcuk? Seriously? Ron Woodroof must be looking down thinking what the hell is wrong with people today.

EDIT: Found the following docu on it and will give it a watch now. Never heard of 'bugchasing' before. What a world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN4w8e432_o

Absolute ****ing clowns. While it's not an Irish thing, taxpayers should not be paying for those pricks

Uosdwis R. Dewoh

A Little Pony wrote: »

The elephant in the room not been touched upon yet..

Apart from in the post right after the opening post.

Ten of Swords

Dr Brown wrote: »

If anal sex was banned HIV would disappear.

How, exactly?

Nonsensical comment :rolleyes:

Joshies

Any1 for poz party?

Ursus Horribilis

I can't say I'm surprised. I was shocked earlier this year when a study revealed one-third of Irish adults use the withdrawal method as their contraception. I grew up in the late 80s/early 90s, just before they found effective drugs for HIV. So I remember the AIDS sex ed classes in school, the ads on TV and the "wear a condom" mantra. As a result, I've never had unprotected sex with a new partner.

Since then, a lot has changed. I think a lot more people are having casual sex and the spectre of AIDS as death sentence has evaporated. When was the last time you heard of a celeb dying of AIDS? There's probably also more ignorance and complacency about. Nobody likes to wear condoms but it's ironic that HIV cases are increasing even though they've never been easier to buy.

Ursus Horribilis

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

I can't say I'm surprised. I was shocked earlier this year when a study revealed one-third of Irish adults use the withdrawal method as their contraception. I grew up in the late 80s/early 90s, just before they found effective drugs for HIV. So I remember the AIDS sex ed classes in school, the ads on TV and the "wear a condom" mantra. As a result, I've never had unprotected sex with a new partner.

Since then, a lot has changed. I think a lot more people are having casual sex and the spectre of AIDS as death sentence has evaporated. When was the last time you heard of a celeb dying of AIDS? There's probably also more ignorance and complacency about. Nobody likes to wear condoms but it's ironic that HIV cases are increasing even though they've never been easier to buy.

Bull****, people are sleeping around less now than in the last 40 odd years and have fewer sexual partners on average.

Ursus Horribilis

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Bull****, people are sleeping around less now than in the last 40 odd years and have fewer sexual partners on average.

Not from what I've observed.

_Dara_

_Dara_ wrote: »

Medications to manage HIV come with bad side effects including heart disease and issues with adiposity, as well as daily issues that can wear you down like fatigue.

Oh I'm not by any means downplaying the side-effects of HIV treatment, but neither do I think it's quite as bad as you are indicating. Yes, there can be side-effects. But these tend to be fairly mild, such as headaches and, maybe at worst, GI issues.

What I was saying was, HIV isn't as horrific as those 1980's ads with the tombstones might have suggested. Those ads were accurate at the time, but HIV treatments now seem to have resolved the life expectancy problems for those who live the condition, and are treated appropriately.

I wouldn't want either HIV or diabetes.

Neither would I, but I know which one I'd prefer.

Which would you prefer?

I assume that, as anyone who's looked into this, your answer is HIV. And isn't that remarkable? We don't have to view this as a negative news story. This is a major scientific breakthrough that has provided invaluable reassurance for those living with HIV. It is something to celebrate!

_Dara_

Why would you assume that? Type I diabetes is well-managed and it’s possible to reverse type II diabetes or at least massively reduce the symptoms. Most people who develop type II diabetes are older when it happens whereas often people who contract HIV will be young and at a time in life when they are not expecting health problems. I’d see diabetes and AIDs to be as undesirable as each other. I know from having a chronic illness that just because it’s managed doesn’t mean it’s plain sailing.

It’s great that such strides have been made in treating it but nobody is going to shrug at the thought of contracting it because of that. I have to take medication every single day for two separate illnesses. These medications keep me alive. It is shit. Your post very much read like someone who has never faced this reality. That’s great (if I’m right), happy for you, but you lack understanding of what it’s like. At least that’s how it reads to me.

flaneur

Little or no sex education, a country that's embraced a sexual awakening very late and one that has a MASSIVE binge drinking problem.

It's hardly surprising.

suicide_circus

Dr Brown wrote: »

If anal sex was banned HIV would disappear.

Nonsense. Up the bum, no harm done.

Lorelli!

Dr Brown wrote: »

If anal sex was banned HIV would disappear.

Are you sure it would disappear? Are you hiv positive about that?

One eyed Jack

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Which would you prefer?

I assume that, as anyone who's looked into this, your answer is HIV. And isn't that remarkable? We don't have to view this as a negative news story. This is a major scientific breakthrough that has provided invaluable reassurance for those living with HIV. It is something to celebrate!

I think you're ignoring the reality that HIV has a social stigma, where diabetes just doesn't. I understand the point of your comparison, but HIV isn't a case of "would you rather HIV or diabetes?", and it's the casual attitude towards HIV is what's causing people to think these breakthroughs are something to celebrate, now they can go barebacking and not have to be conscious of the fact that they aren't just putting themselves at risk any more, they're putting everyone else at risk too.

It's an entirely selfish mentality where the stigma of HIV is now considered to be more harmful than HIV itself. I think that's wrong, because that's what's causing the rise in the numbers of people who have this carefree attitude to HIV. They aren't conscious of the reality of contracting the disease, which is nothing like developing diabetes.

notsoyoungwan

LexieOnRale wrote: »

HIV is literally the one thing I'd prefer death over.

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I couldn't think of anything worse

Really? While obviously I'd hope never to have any of these illnesses, the two that strike fear into me are motor neutron disease and Huntington's disease. Either of those, IMO, would be much worse than HIV.

Annasopra

bob50 wrote: »

Prep and PEP treatments.

PrEP is a drug you need to take long term 1/2 tabs every day and this will proctect men who have unsafe sex with other men i.e no condom used

But its not avialable here in Ireland Its widely given in the usa and Scotland on prescription

Its also on trial in London where some clinics there are given to men who engage in the unsafe sex.

And its been a lifesaver Also the rates of HIV infection have fallen in these places

PEP is post expsoure where you take a cocktail of drugs for approx 7/10 days
If you thnk you have been exposed to HIV but it must be taken within 72 hours of sex if you feel you were exposed

The HSE needs to advertise these options so that guys are aware of these options

Why would the HSE advertise PREP when it isnt available here?

Annasopra

Deleted User wrote: »

Bull****, people are sleeping around less now than in the last 40 odd years and have fewer sexual partners on average.

Any links with statistics?

_Dara_

notsoyoungwan wrote: »

Really? While obviously I'd hope never to have any of these illnesses, the two that strike fear into me are motor neutron disease and Huntington's disease. Either of those, IMO, would be much worse than HIV.

Yeah, they’d be worse alright. I’m in the unique position of having two illnesses - one is a chronic illness that rarely kills but has sometimes nasty complications and one that will kill me pretty soon. Having the more serious illness doesn’t make me think the less serious one is no big deal. It still affects my quality of life. People are not going to be more blasé about HIV simply because they might have a more normal lifespan. It’s about quality of life too. Everyone wants the best quality of life they can possibly have.

notsoyoungwan

_Dara_ wrote: »

Yeah, they’d be worse alright. I’m in the unique position of having two illnesses - one is a chronic illness that rarely kills but has sometimes nasty complications and one that will kill me pretty soon. Having the more serious illness doesn’t make me think the less serious one is no big deal. It still affects my quality of life. People are not going to be more blasé about HIV simply because they might have a more normal lifespan. It’s about quality of life too. Everyone wants the best quality of life they can possibly have.

I know, that's kinda my point. The two illnesses I mentioned are not only life- limiting, they seriously compromise the quality of that shortened life. That double-whammy is to me much worse than having HIV and I'm surprised at the previous poster saying it's the worst illness imaginable for her. I don't know hat poster's age but I wonder if her opinion is somewhat due to the massive fear campaigns that were around during the 80s. The vehemence of the post just piqued my curiosity.

what the hell!

notsoyoungwan wrote: »

Really? While obviously I'd hope never to have any of these illnesses, the two that strike fear into me are motor neutron disease and Huntington's disease. Either of those, IMO, would be much worse than HIV.

Yep we have Huntingtons in our family- give me HIV any day of the week.

One eyed Jack

notsoyoungwan wrote: »

I know, that's kinda my point. The two illnesses I mentioned are not only life- limiting, they seriously compromise the quality of that shortened life. That double-whammy is to me much worse than having HIV and I'm surprised at the previous poster saying it's the worst illness imaginable for her. I don't know hat poster's age but I wonder if her opinion is somewhat due to the massive fear campaigns that were around during the 80s. The vehemence of the post just piqued my curiosity.

I'd be the same as Lexie tbh, and I was around during the 80's, Freddie Mercury's death in '91 made an even greater impact than any amount of advertising tbh, but it's not even a question of quality of life, it's what a person is or isn't prepared to live with. For example I recently was supposed to go in for an operation, but because they couldn't guarantee me that they wouldn't do a blood transfusion, I basically told them it was something I wasn't prepared to live with. They questioned me six ways from Sunday as though I hadn't thought about the potential consequences of my decision, but I have. The operation would significantly improve my quality of life, but I'm more prepared to live with how I am now than if I were to receive a blood transfusion. As Lexie said it's completely irrational, and I get that, but there are some things people aren't prepared to live with, and for me too HIV is one of those things.

_Dara_

notsoyoungwan wrote: »

I know, that's kinda my point. The two illnesses I mentioned are not only life- limiting, they seriously compromise the quality of that shortened life. That double-whammy is to me much worse than having HIV and I'm surprised at the previous poster saying it's the worst illness imaginable for her. I don't know hat poster's age but I wonder if her opinion is somewhat due to the massive fear campaigns that were around during the 80s. The vehemence of the post just piqued my curiosity.

Oh, I know, my point was that I have an illness on a par with MND in terms of shortening life and, in a different way, suffering. MND restricts your movement eventually but my disease would be much more painful. And I still totally understand why people would be horrified to get a chronic illness like AIDS or fibromyalgia or whatever. Chronic pain and other symptoms of chronic illnesses can be soul-destroying and a normal lifespan’s worth is a horrible prospect. As said, I have a unique perspective on this, having both the chronic disease and the terminal illness.

_Dara_

_Dara_ wrote: »

Why would you assume that? Type I diabetes is well-managed and it’s possible to reverse type II diabetes or at least massively reduce the symptoms. Most people who develop type II diabetes are older when it happens whereas often people who contract HIV will be young and at a time in life when they are not expecting health problems. I’d see diabetes and AIDs to be as undesirable as each other. I know from having a chronic illness that just because it’s managed doesn’t mean it’s plain sailing.

I'm not suggesting that HIV is plain sailing, or that it doesn't matter. The reason I became interested in this topic is because I used to live with someone who is gay, sexually active (and therefore considered by some to be in an at-risk category) and a doctor working in the endorcrinology field. He used to say things like 'God give me HIV in the morning but save me from Diabetes', which is the only reason that specific illness came to my mind.

There seems to be a substantial body of research backing up his daft prayer. Those under the age of 50, living with Diabetes, seem to have a life expectancy that is shorter than the mainstream population (some say as much as 20 years shorter), but I previously linked an article showing that those infected with HIV will live about as long as those of us who do not have HIV.

It isn't just about life expectancy/ age-at-death, either. It's also about life quality. Most people on anti-retroviral/ HIV medication do not experience any serious side effects, whereas anyone who knows a person living with Diabetes, knows that the ramifications of that illness can extend way beyond simply taking some medication.

Again, Diabetes is a purely random disease. I'm sure there are many better comparisons.

My only suggestion is that, when looking at the OP, we should bear in mind that HIV is far from being the life sentence it once was. For many people, it doesn't make a big difference to their lives, and doesn't materially affect their quality of life.

There is the stigma, of course; I accept that. Unfortunately society moves forward at a far slower pace than modern medicine does.

snowflaker

Are there good Cancer victims and Bad ones?

corner of hells

what the hell! wrote: »

notsoyoungwan wrote: »

Really? While obviously I'd hope never to have any of these illnesses, the two that strike fear into me are motor neutron disease and Huntington's disease. Either of those, IMO, would be much worse than HIV.

Yep we have Huntingtons in our family- give me HIV any day of the week.

It's in mine too , I'll take HIV any day too.