H.I.V. 2 year old barred from pool (Right or Wrong?)

Who has the right. The pool administrators or the child.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3356281&page=1&GMA=true

Since the child was obviously gay, Jesus certainly doesn't want it in his clean pools.

well HIV, is passed blood to blood only, it cant survive in the enviornment. i mean unless hes going to run up on little girls, and mothers, i dont think there is alot to worry about.... but then again maybe. I'm sure they're just loooking out for everyone else, and then of course their pool.

Yes, I think they were right. Though I know swimming in the same pool as a kid with HIV won't mean that you get it, I know from swimming as a little kid myself, you can get cut up just from some rough tiles on the side of the pool. But then again, the kid is two, and probably can't get in and out of the pool without his parents, thus eliminating that. If the child had been older, then they definitely should have gotten that doctor's information and then done something accordingly. But even now, it was a safety precaution.

Originally posted by Tengu
well HIV, is passed blood to blood only

Transmitted via blood, semen, vaginal fluids, and breast milk.

since the pool was owned and operated privately I see no problems. They should have the right to barr whoever they want from their property.

Originally posted by inimalist
since the pool was owned and operated privately I see no problems. They should have the right to barr whoever they want from their property.

This is a good philosophy. People need to remember it when they move on to other topics.

Originally posted by botankus
This is a good philosophy. People need to remember it when they move on to other topics.

agreed

People have a lot of trouble discriminating between privacy and secrecy though, and while not as applicable to this topic as others, it is a huge obsticle in getting people to respect property and personal rights of others when they don't mesh completely with mainstream society.

There's friggin chlorine in the friggin' pool. The virus would die instantly....

Also there's bleach in the friggin' pool. Bleach kills viruses.

The kid could vomit and pee in the pool at the same time but the odds of transmission (especially with the friggin' bleach and chlorine) are extremely low. You have a better chance of winning the lottery.

Anyone been to a waterpark? Thousands of people use the damn same water you did. Odds are you swam in the same damn pool as a dozen HIV+ persons.

Swear to god, only in bumbf*ck Alabama....

Originally posted by inimalist
since the pool was owned and operated privately I see no problems. They should have the right to barr whoever they want from their property.

Except it violates the Ryan White Act and it's federally illegal to discriminate people based on HIV status....

Same way you cannot restrict access based on race.

They're either goin' to jail, paying a fine or getting a hell of lawsuit...

Originally posted by Draco69
Except it violates the Ryan White Act and it's federally illegal to discriminate people based on HIV status....

Same way you cannot restrict access based on race.

They're either goin' to jail, paying a fine or getting a hell of lawsuit...

Possible dangers are not included in that act?

And that is kinda shit.

Originally posted by Draco69
Except it violates the Ryan White Act and it's federally illegal to discriminate people based on HIV status....

Same way you cannot restrict access based on race.

They're either goin' to jail, paying a fine or getting a hell of lawsuit...

interesting

do you want to turn this into a thread about how the federal government shouldn't have the right to impose such restrictions on private citizens simply because of some whiney socialist pc nutjobs?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Possible dangers are not included in that act?

And that is kinda shit.

There are statutes that invoke common sense. I.E. You can't give blood if you're HIV+

However there is no "danger" here.

Pools have chlorine and bleach. The HIV virus can only survive outside the body for a few milliseconds (and it must be in a moist and permeable environment). The ONLY way it can be transmitted is through blood or semen. The kid's two, so semen is outta the question. If the kid bleeds, the virus will instantly be killed by the chlorine. If it somehow survives (it won't) it will be instantly killed by the bleach in the pool.

It's logic. Bleach. Chlorine. HIV virus=dead.

The kid can spit in the water all he wants, he won't transmit it (it's less than a hundredth of a percent likely to transmit through saliva; it must be next to nothing in a chlorinated pool.)

The kid's swimming in an proverbial vat of acid meant to kill any kind of virus or bacteria.

Originally posted by inimalist
interesting

do you want to turn this into a thread about how the federal government shouldn't have the right to impose such restrictions on private citizens simply because of some whiney socialist pc nutjobs?

No, I'd rather discuss the stupidity of the pool administrators who obviously don't even have a GED....

Originally posted by Draco69
No, I'd rather discuss the stupidity of the pool administrators who obviously don't even have a GED....

I don't disagree, and would probably not want my kids swimming in a pool where the owners didn't know what their chlorine was actually for.

Originally posted by Draco69
There are statutes that invoke common sense. I.E. You can't give blood if you're HIV+

However there is no "danger" here.

Pools have chlorine and bleach. The HIV virus can only survive outside the body for a few milliseconds (and it must be in a moist and permeable environment). The ONLY way it can be transmitted is through blood or semen. The kid's two, so semen is outta the question. If the kid bleeds, the virus will instantly be killed by the chlorine. If it somehow survives (it won't) it will be instantly killed by the bleach in the pool.

It's logic. Bleach. Chlorine. HIV virus=dead.

The kid can spit in the water all he wants, he won't transmit it (it's less than a hundredth of a percent likely to transmit through saliva; it must be next to nothing in a chlorinated pool.)

The kid's swimming in an proverbial vat of acid meant to kill any kind of virus or bacteria.

No one is saying that actually.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't disagree, and would probably not want my kids swimming in a pool where the owners didn't know what their chlorine was actually for.

Oh, I can imagine it now:

"Well, garsh, I reckon the chloraine or whatchmacallit is what makes that thar pool blue and stuff!"

❌

Originally posted by Bardock42
The kid is young. It might very well touch one of the other kids. The blood doesn't have to be transfered through the pool.

No one is saying that actually.

Yes, the "what if the kid spurts blood all over my kid" argument.

In that case, the kid can't play in the playground. God knows, he'll fall and bleed all over the other kids. Forget pre-school as well. That's just another deathtrap. Come to think of it, he shouldn't go to restaurants either. Kids talk with their mouths full. He'll be spitting out a HIV-ridden rain of death on all the other customers....

I guess if it were illegal to include an individual from swimming in the pool, it would be wise to sign a No Humping In The Pool contract. I know this sounds a bit crazy, but I don't know many people who haven't gotten it on in a pool.

I am in favor of the pool admin.

If I went swimming in that pool I would feel much safer knowing the pool administrator isn't letting people with a deadly transmittable disease swim right next to me.

Originally posted by Draco69
Yes, the "what if the kid spurts blood all over my kid" argument.

In that case, the kid can't play in the playground. God knows, he'll fall and bleed all over the other kids. Forget pre-school as well. That's just another deathtrap. Come to think of it, he shouldn't go to restaurants either. Kids talk with their mouths full. He'll be spitting out a HIV-ridden rain of death on all the other customers....

It was a private pool wasnt it? The owner has the right to not let people in if he thinks it will hurt his business, which it would. This isnt a public government park or playground.