Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

I believe that AIDS wasn't a high priority for Reagan, but from my vantage point it looks like HIV is an instance of an enormously complicated biological challenge being addressed with extraordinary effectiveness and rapidity by the medical establishment.

I take your point (and the sibling commenter's point) about the epidemiologic response to AIDS; I may be over-fixated on the research and development side of the issue.

View on HN

It's important to remember that AZT (the first effective anti-retroviral treatment for HIV) was invented in the 60s as part of cancer research. It wasn't until the mid-80s that HIV researchers started testing it.

In other words, it's not as if the drug was invented in response to the AIDS crisis. Once the NIH/NCI made AIDS research a priority, it was a rather straightforward matter to start testing known anti-retroviral drugs. One can reasonably argue that if the government had made HIV research a priority in the late 70s and early 80s, the effective treatments would have been found before the epidemic exploded (for example, contrast to SARS or bird flu, where the index patients are chased down and isolated, and immunological research begins before there are even tens of thousands of patients.)

Was HIV even identified in the late 1970s and early 80s though? I thought it was identified as a consequence of looking at the causes of the AIDS epidemic.

The virus was discovered in 1983, but knowledge of the "gay cancer" was around in the late 70s. I shouldn't have said "HIV research" there, but rather, "AIDS research". The medical world's interest in AIDS was pretty limited until it started to break out of the marginalized populations of gay men and drug users.

Ah, OK, makes sense. That's when it was realized that it was not exclusively "GRID" (Gay-related Immune Disorder) and that it was transmitted by virus.

It's been a while since I've read the book but "And the Band Played On" paints a pretty sad picture about all the missed opportunities to save lives in the early years of the epidemic, due to (admittedly complicated) politics. And not just among politicians and government agencies, but among medical doctors and researchers and leaders of the gay community. You can feel rage and frustration coming through the pages--and it's an incredibly heartbreaking book as you see many of the main personalities involved in the fight against AIDS succumb to it themselves. Including the author himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_the_Band_Played_On#Subject

That's specific to the early years though, pre-Rock Hudson. Obviously a lot's changed since then.

What about SARS back in 2003? China first observed SARS in Nov 2002 but didn't report it until February 2003. The responsible virus was identified by April 2003 and the whole disease contained by July. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndro...

I'm not an epidemiologist so I can't compare the relative complexity of the SARS virus to HIV. But I'm skeptical that HIV presented a massive and insurmountable biologic challenge compared to other viruses.

I also encourage you to look into the epidemiological and sociological aspects of AIDS. It's horrifying, and it colors my above skepticism. The gay community referred to AIDS as a holocaust back in the early 80s, and I would encourage you to read this article at your leisure to see why: http://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/23/books/l-aids-and-the-holoc...

Of course, SARS was 30 years later...

To get some perspective, 1981 was as close to 2013 as it was to 1949.

Edit: Yes, I meant 2013, thanks. Point being: I remember the mid (not early) 80's and it SEEMS so recent and modern but it's as far removed from our life today as 1950's life was then.

I think you mean 2013.

This made me feel really old, so I checked your math:

  2003 1981 - p
  22
  1981 1949 - p
  32

Reply on news.ycombinator.com