MOD to allow people with HIV to enlist

GDog

Old-Salt
The PrEP medication is fine for civvies who work in an office, but what happens when the supply runs out during a long austere deployment?
PrEP is taken to prevent you from getting HIV in the first place. If a supply of it ran out then it simply means you need to use condoms or stop having **** sex.

Given how many service personnel are grotbag mingers I'd probably stop taking it during a deployment anyway.
 

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Just for information, there have been HIV health care workers since HIV was discovered. Initially their role was limited but for the past 7 years they can be any position, nurse, surgeon, dentist etc.
And you won't be told.

One of my patients before I moved down here was UU.

And a nurse involved in the clinical care of patients.


Here's the relevant guidance from the Chief Medical officer and has been in place since 2014.
20211206_173226.jpg
Screenshot_20211206-173158_Samsung Internet.jpg
 

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Back to the fit lads doing all the shite taskings then.

And those are UU can be as fit as anyone.
 
And those are UU can be as fit as anyone.

You know full well I meant fit as in deployable in all areas.
 

Chef

LE
Just for information, there have been HIV health care workers since HIV was discovered. Initially their role was limited but for the past 7 years they can be any position, nurse, surgeon, dentist etc.
And you won't be told.

One of my patients before I moved down here was UU.

And a nurse involved in the clinical care of patients.


Here's the relevant guidance from the Chief Medical officer and has been in place since 2014.
View attachment 620722View attachment 620723
At least she's optimistic about something, the gloom merchant:
 

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
You know full well I meant fit as in deployable in all areas.

As we don't routinely screen for BBVs, we actually have no idea how many HIV, hep B or hep C have deployed over the years.

That's the thing about some of these viruses, folk can live perfectly normal lives while being perfectly fit.
 
As we don't routinely screen for BBVs, we actually have no idea how many HIV, hep B or hep C have deployed over the years.

That's the thing about some of these viruses, folk can live perfectly normal lives while being perfectly fit.

But the army does have an idea of who needs daily meds.
These people cant live a perfectly normal career, because they have to have restrictions.
 
Please explain the risks of treating a known UU HIV+.

And then explain the risks of treating an undiagnosed BBV carrier.

Just for clarity, my understanding was that U=U only applied to sexual transmission, and that data had not established zero risk from needle stick or traumatic injury. Could you confirm please?
 

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Just for clarity, my understanding was that U=U only applied to sexual transmission, and that data had not established zero risk from needle stick or traumatic injury. Could you confirm please?

Given that there is not really been any infections from sharps/needlestick injuries from those with detectable viral loads, then there is no evidence for transmission from UU from that route.

As I said up thread, HIV is relatively hard to catch, especially compared to hep B or C.
Screenshot_20211206-220430_Samsung Internet.jpg

 

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
But the army does have an idea of who needs daily meds.
These people cant live a perfectly normal career, because they have to have restrictions.

There is a big difference between those who will rapidly decline against those who will take many weeks or months, and even then it would only be detectable via blood tests rather than performance.
 
There is a big difference between those who will rapidly decline against those who will take many weeks or months, and even then it would only be detectable via blood tests rather than performance.

Who knows if they will be weeks without their meds. Funnily enough not everything goes to plan.
 
Who knows if they will be weeks without their meds. Funnily enough not everything goes to plan.
This is becoming a slightly facile argument: you are setting the chance of an individual losing access to medication (not necessarily high) and then declining rapidly (again, not necessarily high) against no control measure. What are you measuring this unfortunate individual against?

Or in other words: are we more worried about the guy who's lost his ARVs, or the guy who has worse admin and has now got trench foot?
 
This is becoming a slightly facile argument: you are setting the chance of an individual losing access to medication (not necessarily high) and then declining rapidly (again, not necessarily high) against no control measure. What are you measuring this unfortunate individual against?

Or in other words: are we more worried about the guy who's lost his ARVs, or the guy who has worse admin and has now got trench foot?
'underlying health condition' is the matter here, Bob.
He is HIV+, albeit U=U.
Which could change at short notice. That little immunovirus is a bit of a bugger for doing it.
Add physical and mental stress, poor hygiene and food, and the opportunist little blighter may just re-emerge.
As opposed to might contract trench foot.
 
Will dog tags specify whether the person has HIV?
It is standard that blood type is specified in case the soldier is injured. Will there be any clear indication to medics & casualty handlers that extra precaution should be taken?
Will extra precautionary measures (if they are necessary) endanger the injured soldiers due to speed of treatment?

I can't see anyone getting this added to blood type tattoo's, not sure if that is still a thing.

I doubt it. Bodily fluid security happens as standard already. The only issue is with emergency first response, which is likely to be people who know anyway.
 
'underlying health condition' is the matter here, Bob.
He is HIV+, albeit U=U.
Which could change at short notice. That little immunovirus is a bit of a bugger for doing it.
Add physical and mental stress, poor hygiene and food, and the opportunist little blighter may just re-emerge.
As opposed to might contract trench foot.

Wasn't the SANDF mostly undeployable a few years back due to the prevalence of HIV? Seem to recall there was an issue with UN deployments.
 
Wasn't the SANDF mostly undeployable a few years back due to the prevalence of HIV? Seem to recall there was an issue with UN deployments.
Yep, they were committed, and dragged in a whole bunch from Reserve Force regiments to make up the numbers, as there was a shortage of 'deployable' chaps in regular force.
Through illness, lack of currency in training etc.
Absolute joke that 'weekend warriors' can keep current, while the full timers cannot.
 
'underlying health condition' is the matter here, Bob.
He is HIV+, albeit U=U.
Which could change at short notice. That little immunovirus is a bit of a bugger for doing it.
Add physical and mental stress, poor hygiene and food, and the opportunist little blighter may just re-emerge.
As opposed to might contract trench foot.
True - but we can and do manage a number of underlying health conditions while deployed already (possibly more in the RN given bringing a doctor and equipped medical facility is easier). Therefore, either:

- The MoD hasn't done its homework, is blithely leaping onto a bandwagon and will allow HIV+ individuals to serve wherever without risk of mitigation
- The MoD has realised it will get sued into oblivion if it gets this wrong and has given some small thought to how it can employ HIV+ individuals while mitigating the risk.

My point - poorly chosen I admit - was that @Stacker 1 is holding up an ever more extreme counterexample without any control. At what point does his "ah, but did you consider this?" reach the territory of "risks that the MoD accepts as unreasonably hard to control anyway"?
 
True - but we can and do manage a number of underlying health conditions while deployed already (possibly more in the RN given bringing a doctor and equipped medical facility is easier). Therefore, either:

- The MoD hasn't done its homework, is blithely leaping onto a bandwagon and will allow HIV+ individuals to serve wherever without risk of mitigation
- The MoD has realised it will get sued into oblivion if it gets this wrong and has given some small thought to how it can employ HIV+ individuals while mitigating the risk.

My point - poorly chosen I admit - was that @Stacker 1 is holding up an ever more extreme counterexample without any control. At what point does his "ah, but did you consider this?" reach the territory of "risks that the MoD accepts as unreasonably hard to control anyway"?
“No Plan survives first contact with the enemy.”
So whatever the chairborne brigade decides is 'acceptable' goes out the window very quickly when the shooting starts.
As I wrote above, from a PBI POV, put a section in the field for a week, and they may have to stay out for two, or longer.
So mentally and physically they are under strain, rations are low, water may be scarce, medical supplies dwindling fast. Now, in among them is Trooper X, who is HIV U+U, and his immune syatem is taking a shoeing, he has numerous cuts, bruises and scrapes. And galloping trots.
Will his medication actually be absorbed quicker than he shits/pukes it out?
I've seen people go from 'under control' HIV to full-blow AIDS in a matter of months. It isn't pleasant.
 
I think we may be slightly at cross purposes here, though I concede your point. Stacker has slightly rubbed me up the wrong way in presenting counterfactuals to everything no matter how improbable.

As I've said earlier, I suspect this policy is aimed mostly at the RN and the RAF, where U=U individuals can be more easily managed.
 
This is becoming a slightly facile argument: you are setting the chance of an individual losing access to medication (not necessarily high) and then declining rapidly (again, not necessarily high) against no control measure. What are you measuring this unfortunate individual against?

Or in other words: are we more worried about the guy who's lost his ARVs, or the guy who has worse admin and has now got trench foot?

I'm setting it against the fact the army didn't put people who needed daily medication in these situations, now apparently HIV sufferers are a special case.
 

Latest Threads

Top