Comapring The Response To Hiv/Aids And Sars

HIV/AIDS

History

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS), is a human viral disease that destroys the immune system, which prevents the body from combating infection and disease. AIDS is caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which leaves infected persons susceptible to opportunistic infections. Such infections are not fatal in HIV negative persons, but in those whose immune systems have been weakened by the virus, they can be deadly. HIV is believed to have begun in isolated parts of central Africa where the retrovirus made the jump from chimpanzees to humans. Evidence of this was found when retroviruses in AIDS patients appeared more similar to those found in the chimpanzees than to other human retroviruses. It is likely that the retrovirus infected people who ingested chimpanzee meat and it subsequently underwent mutations to form the human retrovirus. Scientists have confirmed that the virus made the jump from chimpanzees to humans around the 1940s or 1950s. However, the virus was slow to spread because members of these rural communities had limited contact with people from other areas. The 1960s and the 1970s brought political upheaval, wars, drought, and famine which resulted in rural-urban migration as many people were in search of jobs. As migration broadened to include world travel, HIV became a global epidemic.

(PI, Encarta)

Social Response

At the time of its emergence, HIV/AIDS was thought to be most common among homosexual, bisexual, and drug-using persons (Waugh, 580). These lifestyles were taboos in and of themselves and subsequently the topic of HIV/AIDS became a taboo; a disease for immoral persons. Hence, societies and governments turned the other cheek to the disease. They were able to get away with doing so not only because the affected groups were outcasts of society, but also because HIV/AIDS did not begin as the large-scale disease that it is today. This enabled the disease to be further downplayed by the government and overlooked by society. Furthermore, because the time period was so conservative, many persons affected by the virus did not disclose their status and in some cases were in denial about having the virus. For example, around the same time that the virus was prevalent in "Pattern 1" countries, heterosexual persons in "Pattern 2" countries were being affected by HIV/AIDS as well. Pattern 2 countries were also characterized by mother to child transmission and infection via contaminated blood products. Their silence and denial served to further compound the ignorance and lack of proactive initiatives concerning HIV/AIDS.

(Waugh, 581)

Economic Response

Finally, in 1981 HIV/AIDS was officially recognized in medical accounts. This followed the disease moving through to larger groups/communities. Evidence became available that HIV/AIDS was not solely a consequence of immoral lifestyles and that intervention was greatly delayed. For over two decades governments were able to get away with ignoring the disease. This was easy, not only because the social stigma around the disease caused it to be downplayed, but also because for a long time HIV/AIDS did not affect countries' economies. South Africa is one such country whose government not only ignored the virus, but denied until early this year that HIV caused AIDS. The government was able to get away with such a ludicrous notion because of the nature of HIV; sufferers do not die from the virus, but from related infections which their bodies cannot fight because of the virus. Furthermore, in admitting that HIV causes AIDS, the government would be committing to a responsibility it was not willing to undertake. This responsibility would include providing medical and financial support to HIV infected persons. Such support includes, but is not limited to: counselling, medication, and some sort of care for their families after their death should they be the sole bread winner.

Because HIV/AIDS is a degenerative disease and the starting numbers were small, countries did not suffer great losses in population from the onset. This allowed economic dynamics to continue normally until the disease's effects began to have an impact on the economy. This impact was noticeable in a decline in the labour force; these persons were most drastically affected. In majority of the world's societies, the labour force is made up of less educated and illiterate persons and thus they are the least informed about HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment. Furthermore, they have the least economic amenities to obtain medical care. However, because the labour force is such a large and vital part of countries' economies, deaths in this sector upset economies.

The result was a snowball effect as by the time governments decided to intervene the disease was already out of control. It had become a worldwide spread disease and although concentration and forms of transmission vary, it does indeed touch the entire world.

(PIV, Encarta)

(Waugh, 581)

Treatment and Preventative Measures

There is no cure for HIV/AIDS, but new drugs, antiretroviral medication, are available to extend life expectancies and quality of HIV positive persons. However, cost issues have made it a very controversial topic in Economically Less Developed Countries (ELDCs) because majority of HIV sufferers in developing countries persons cannot afford it. For example, sub-Saharan Africa, where most AIDS related deaths occur, is continuing to suffer because of the inaccessibility of such drugs. Such difficulties have caused the global community to unite in the struggle with HIV/AIDS. In doing so, proposed solutions and different groups have been created in an attempt to reach compromises which governments as well as the UN hope will aid to prevent HIV/AIDS related deaths. In 1998, one such compromise resulting from international pressure was an agreement of several pharmaceutical firms to cut the cost of AIDS medication in ELDCs by up to 75%. Unfortunately, this endeavour failed to please many countries who felt that the firms failed to deliver their promise. Many countries then proceeded to take the matter into their own hands. One such country was South Africa, whose government created laws which countermand patent rights of pharmaceutical firms, allowing them to import less expensive generic drugs from places like India and Thailand. Not surprisingly, this legislation was not trouble-free as in 1998, the South African government was sued by 39 pharmaceutical firms for violation of international trade agreements. These claims were later