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

Originally posted by Draco69
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....

Yeah, false.

Actually in Georgia a few years ago, this kid got Salmonella from an uncooked burger, went to a water park that I believe was part of the Six Flags theme park, pooed in the water, and like 3 or more other kids caught Salmonella from him and I believe one of those 3 died.

So, goes to show that this bumbf*ck from Alabama knows a bit more than you.

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....

Man, stop the knee jerking for a second, the kid would go almost naked in a pool with many other naked kids that have no way of really understanding the dangers, the risk is much higher than you make it out to be.

And it should still be the call of the owner of the place, imo.

Nazzy, you are referring to White Water, and having grown up in that area, I can say that happens on about a yearly basis.

Originally posted by botankus
Nazzy, you are referring to White Water, and having grown up in that area, I can say that happens on about a yearly basis.

Thanks, I remember hearing about it once or twice, I didn't remember the details.
But I was trying to point out that chlorine won't necessarily kill it.

It's always the top news story of the week when it happens.

Originally posted by Naz
Yeah, false.

Actually in Georgia a few years ago, this kid got Salmonella from an uncooked burger, went to a water park that I believe was part of the Six Flags theme park, pooed in the water, and like 3 or more other kids caught Salmonella from him and I believe one of those 3 died.

So, goes to show that this bumbf*ck from Alabama knows a bit more than you.

Salmonella is endobacteria that is not only resistant to the chemical compound of chlorine but also thrives in water. It can actually use chlorine to boost it's reproductivity.

The HIV virus or a virus period? Not so much.

Bacteria can be spread through pools because they can adapt. Viruses simply cannot survive in a pool with chlorine or even in the air for more than a few milliseconds because they require a host.

The only way HIV could be transmitted in the pool is if the virus ultimately evolved to be chlorine-resistant. Which it hasn't.

You haven't distinguished the difference between the two. So, no you haven't really disproved the stereotype yet...

damn, beat me to it

Originally posted by Bardock42
Man, stop the knee jerking for a second, the kid would go almost naked in a pool with many other naked kids that have no way of really understanding the dangers, the risk is much higher than you make it out to be.

And it should still be the call of the owner of the place, imo.

Are you implying the kid will have sex with the other children and instigate some sort of paedophilic orgy?

🐰

Originally posted by inimalist
are you saying that salmonella bacteria and the HIV virus have the same reaction to chlorine or even h2o?

They don't. Salmonella thrives in watery environments. HIV can't even survive in plain ol' tapwater...

Originally posted by Draco69
Are you implying the kid will have sex with the other children and instigate some sort of paedophilic orgy?

🐰

No. He might exchange blood with them though.

Originally posted by Draco69
Are you implying the kid will have sex with the other children and instigate some sort of paedophilic orgy?

🐰

we had a whole day of training where I used to work about HIV sensitivity. During this training we were CONSTANTLY reinforced about how HIV isn't a moral condemnation or that people with HIV can still be members of the working public.

However, during the training there was a moment where the safety of working with people with HIV came up, and, in the wonderful show of freedom of speech and willingness to address conflicting views, I was LITERALLY censored from bringing up any points.

The fact of the matter is that, no matter how low the chance of infection is, there is a infinitly higher chance of obtaining HIV in some freak accident when one of the people involved is HIV positive versus when they are not.

Is it impossible to think of any realistic situation where two children are bleeding together?

This is not saying that the risk is not so low that it is retarted to discriminate against people with HIV, just a statement of fact. Unlike race or gender, there is a very specific difference between people with and without the HIV virus.

Originally posted by Draco69
They don't. Salmonella thrives in watery environments. HIV can't even survive in plain ol' tapwater...

I know 🙂

iirc oxygen kills HIV

Originally posted by Bardock42
No. He might exchange blood with them though.

Well, maybe the kid's a dope fiend and he'll find another two-year old dope fiend.

But the odds are same as everywhere else. He can just as easily "exchange" blood with another kid in any other environment. In the playground. A school. A bus. A train.

Why not ban the kid from those environments as well?

Originally posted by Draco69
They don't. Salmonella thrives in watery environments. HIV can't even survive in plain ol' tapwater...

The point was that chlorine, which is supposed to disinfect the pool, didn't stop the Salmonella, thus it is logical to assume that it may not stop any other kind of disease, and thus not letting the HIV infected kid in the pool was a good choice so that there was never an opportunity for anyone else to be infected by it. It was a safety procaution.

Originally posted by inimalist
we had a whole day of training where I used to work about HIV sensitivity. During this training we were CONSTANTLY reinforced about how HIV isn't a moral condemnation or that people with HIV can still be members of the working public.

However, during the training there was a moment where the safety of working with people with HIV came up, and, in the wonderful show of freedom of speech and willingness to address conflicting views, I was LITERALLY censored from bringing up any points.

The fact of the matter is that, no matter how low the chance of infection is, there is a infinitly higher chance of obtaining HIV in some freak accident when one of the people involved is HIV positive versus when they are not.

Is it impossible to think of any realistic situation where two children are bleeding together?

This is not saying that the risk is not so low that it is retarted to discriminate against people with HIV, just a statement of fact. Unlike race or gender, there is a very specific difference between people with and without the HIV virus.

I basically agree with this on the whole. That's kinda the point I was trying to make.

Originally posted by Draco69
Well, maybe the kid's a dope fiend and he'll find another two-year old dope fiend.

But the odds are same as everywhere else. He can just as easily "exchange" blood with another kid in any other environment. In the playground. A school. A bus. A train.

Why not ban the kid from those environments as well?

No, it is not the same. It just isn't. Their entire bodies are exposed they are playing together touching each other, it is not amazingly unlikely that both have open wounds.

The chance of infection is just not as low as you want it to be. You can try to make me look like a fool that doesn't want HIV positive people around him, but that's not the case, I can just see that there is indeed a risk...

Originally posted by Draco69
Well, maybe the kid's a dope fiend and he'll find another two-year old dope fiend.

But the odds are same as everywhere else. He can just as easily "exchange" blood with another kid in any other environment. In the playground. A school. A bus. A train.

Why not ban the kid from those environments as well?

if it is owned privately let the kid be banned because he picks his nose the wrong way

Governmet shouldn't be able to legislate who you must do buisnuiss with

Originally posted by Naz
The point was that chlorine, which is supposed to disinfect the pool, didn't stop the Salmonella, thus it is logical to assume that it may not stop any other kind of disease, and thus not letting the HIV infected kid in the pool was a good choice so that there was never an opportunity for anyone else to be infected by it. It was a safety procaution.

Bacteria is not a virus.

Bacteria can survive in any type of environment. Even space.

A virus, even HIV, cannot survive anywhere without a host. Even in the air. Even in water. It's simply not possible. That's what makes a virus a virus.

You don't understand the difference between the two. You're just lumping them together under the word "disease".

HIV cannot even withstand oxygen. HIV will be instantly killed by chlorine. Bleach and chlorine can kill ANY virus. Bacteria? Not so much.

People think that HIV is some sorta uber-virus. It's isn't. It's a virus just like any other virus. And it's extremely fragile and weak. It just has the most devious and ingenious programming ever seen by mankind. And it's extremely tricky. But when it's exposed to oxygen or chlorine. It dies. Plain and simple.

Originally posted by Draco69
HIV cannot even withstand oxygen. HIV will be instantly killed by chlorine. Bleach and chlorine can kill ANY virus. Bacteria? Not so much.

Then why is HIV found in the blood stream, the blood, where oxygen is found?

Okay, so maybe the chlorine would have killed it. But you still can't convince me that there was no way, or atleast a low enough chance, that that kid couldn't have spread HIV. I wasn't a kid that long ago, there's a lot of blood involved in pools and playgrounds.

What if you ban blacks from your private business?

Anyways as for the topic, the chances are so small that I really wouldn't consider it a danger, at least not more then when the kid would walk around normally. The kid is two years old so will likely stay around his parents for most of the time. If the water can't spread the infection then there is no reason to ban the kid.

However I wouldn't expect the people in the pool to actually know this, and know exactly what viruses can spread and which one's can't so it seems a logical decision from him.