[xtrapolate]

> "gene is for CCR5, which currently doesn’t have known function"

It's in the article:

> "Even if editing worked perfectly, people without normal CCR5 genes face higher risks of getting certain other viruses, such as West Nile, and of dying from the flu. Since there are many ways to prevent HIV infection and it's very treatable if it occurs, those other medical risks are a concern, Musunuru said."

[skosuri]

Yeah, sorry; I was mostly going off my own past knowledge when less was known; There's a nice summary here as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5#Potential_costs

[a_imho]

it's very treatable if it occurs

Surely it is a bit of a stretch.

[cultus]

People with HIV just have to pop a couple pills a day now to take their viral loads to literally undetectable levels. With treatment, people with HIV can expect to live normal lives, and be healthy and active. It's also almost impossible to transmit HIV with such low viral loads.

[dajohnson89]

And how expensive is that treatment?

[joshstrange]

Truvada which is a HIV prevention drug was priced at ~$1500/mo. I mention it because I know the chemicals in Truvada are similar but IDK the price comparison. Most people on HIV meds are probably hitting their Out-of-pocket max pretty early in the year.

I have had two high deductible plans in the last two year (work changed providers) and here were the things I remember:

Old Insurance:

Deductible: $3,000

Tier: 2

Price: 100%/$60

New Insurance:

Deductible: $3,000

Tier: 3 (maybe 4, I can't remember)

Price: 100%/25%

It was effectively free to me on my old insurance with the copay card (covered $3600) because I would hit my deductible and then have enough to cover the co-pays after. On my new insurance it's not feasible for me to pay ~$400/mo until I hit my OOP ($6000). You might be asking why I didn't look at a PPO plan instead of high deductible, because of the drug tier there was no difference in the price.

[slavak]

You mean in the United States? Or in the civilized world?

[cultus]

Let's just say you want to have insurance. ARVs are something that needs to be free, even moreso that many other health treatments. There is a huge negative externality involved in having untreated HIV since it can be transmitted. If we got everyone tested consistently, and got anyone with HIV on immediate treatment, infection rates would plummet.

HIV tests are still not included in routine bloodwork, even though other diseases like hepatitis are.

[Brockenstein]

If you're on modern treatments life expectancy is near that of a non-HIV person.

The biggest problem is modern medicines aren't available to everyone across the world. So it's still a much more serious problem in developing nations.

[cbg0]

Compared to a few decades ago, you can live a much longer life thanks to the medication available nowadays.

[wiz21c]

well, then it means one understands "treatable" as "there's a treatmen for", it's different thatn "there's a cure for"...

[dfxm12]

According to the OED[0], "treatable" is a boolean that means "able to be cured". "Very" is superfluous here - something is able to be cured or not, I'm not sure what room there is for degree. As far as I know, there is no cure for HIV (but I'd be happy to learn otherwise).

So unless "very treatable" is medical jargon with a different meaning from the how the laity use it, calling HIV "very treatable" does seem to be a stretch.

0 - https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/treatable

[dajohnson89]

In the medical world, treatable is very different from curable.

Chlamydia is a curable bacteria infection (antibiotics). There is no known cure for HIV.

[dillonisacunt]

What? HIV has been considered very treatable for a few years now