Already up to 1/2 of new HIV infections are from people who would test negative in this test; early stage infections. This is because people who have been newly infected are about 4,000% more likely to transmit infection than those who are in late stage infection.
If condom usage dropped even a small amount as a result of this test, it could considerably worsen the epidemic.
From a public health perspective this could be a terrible, terrible disaster.
...1/2 of new HIV infections are from people who would test
negative in this test...
I'm curious what the article means when it says "Researchers at Columbia University claim the mChip has a 100 percent detection rate." Are you sure the test is working the way you think it works? Could it be DNA-based rather than antibody-based?
I am -NOT- purposing this as a mutually exclusive alternative. This should be an addition to what's already happening. No one who goes through the trouble of using this is going to say "well she doesn't have HIV, so what the hell, no condom!"
If you're already practicing to be safe, you still worry about the possibility of something going wrong, and you contracting the infection anyway. With this, you can be more certain that nothing will go wrong. You would still use a condom just in case.
Your argument is like saying people engaging in random sexual activity should close their eyes because not seeing warts will lead them to believe the partner doesn't have warts - which may lower then chance they use a condom. This would offer more information, and if it turns out that person is HIV positive by the test, you'd be eliminating your chances of contraction altogether.
The problem is that there is a very real possibility that someone who would go to a bar and test their partner there would then proceed to have unprotected sex instead of using a condom. A test could give them a false sense of security.
While you personally might still use a condom, judging by the reaction to this in the comments on engadget, many would not, not realizing that they actually are putting themselves at greater risk.
When/if this makes this to the FDA, they're going to look at the overall public health risk. If they assess that such a test would lower condom usage, they'd be unlikely to approve it. If you want to market this as such, you'd have to prove that people using it are just as likely to use a condom, and I think you'll have difficulty with that.
The reality is that ELISA tests in the US are cheap and fast enough already; anyone who wants to test themselves faces little barrier. The cheapness of this test is important for countries where that is not the case.
I hear you, but you're arguing that less information is better, and I have a hard time with that. Especially when you're saying that half of new HIV infections could possibly be prevented by this test! I'm not ready to chuck that out with the bathwater.
The problem is one of information interpretation. If the test results were given as either "Positive" or "Unknown", this would solve the issue, yes?
The problem with epidemiology is that it's complex, and I mean that in a technical sense.
For instance, there's evidence that slowing the speed of an epidemic can result in a higher number of total infected.
I'm not at all saying this is bad. Cheap tests are good. However, we already know that test and treat- no matter how cheap it is- will not stop the current epidemic in the U.S. This is an advance in the cheapness of technology but it can't stop an epidemic, only (possibly) slow it. And even that could ultimately result in more people being ultimately infected, but that's not known for sure.
The only technology that can stop the epidemic currently are condoms. The only behaviors that can stop the epidemic are monogamy and using condoms. And it's possible technology such as this could reduce condom usage, and that's the disaster.
From a public health standpoint we need to watch out for anything that can alter behavior on a positive or negative scale. From the comments on engadget I would predict it would impact human behavior in a negative way, and that's what frightens me.
>And it's possible technology such as this could reduce condom usage, and that's the disaster.
// It's also possible that it could prevent promiscuous sexual activity between people that wouldn't have used condoms and are infected.
I wonder if parking sensors increased the number of parking crashes because people stopped looking out of their windows when parking??? Anyone got stats on that?
Well that guy from Wired that test drove the self- driving car with the sensors actually did crash the car the first time he tried to use it to parallel park...
At any rate, the analogy is weak. Testing partners for HIV only makes sense if you're planning to be in a monogamous relationship with them, and ideally should be done 6 months after the start of a monogamous relationship.
You should use a condom with a girl you meet at a bar no matter what. An HIV test doesn't help you at all.
Interestingly when I first got a cycle helmet was the first time I banged my head whilst cycling, though it was a direct factor (didn't account for the helmet when ducking under a tree). Seatbelts apparently cause some to take more risks.
Already up to 1/2 of new HIV infections are from people who would test negative in this test; early stage infections. This is because people who have been newly infected are about 4,000% more likely to transmit infection than those who are in late stage infection.
If condom usage dropped even a small amount as a result of this test, it could considerably worsen the epidemic.
From a public health perspective this could be a terrible, terrible disaster.