HIV-positive toddler banned from RV park's pool

[Guest123_x1]

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3356281

I see NO reason for this as HIV isn't contagious by casual means (only if he was cut and bleeding and had contact with someone else)
Looks to be a racial issue too.

 

[Ullion]

Personally, I agree with what the park owner did. He may have not known everything about HIV/AIDS and its form of spreading. Since he didn't know, he did the best choice, which is to ensure everyones safety by preventing the 2 year old to go in the pool.

And personally, the line about "Oh, it wasn't the babies fault that he got HIV"
THAT DOESN'T MATTER! He has it now, no need to put blame on people. That line was just pointless and just aggrevating.

And it is quite easy to get cut at a swimming pool, I do it almost everytime I'm there. Then again, I'm not very careful when I do things. Also, the baby is two years old, he shouldn't be swimming in full-sized pools anyways. Maybe wading pools.

So all in all, with the given situation, I believe the owner did the right thing.

 

[Gary the Magic Fairy]

I'll bet there is a way to get HIV from a pool &/or shower. I've been cut in a pool before. I assume it happens quite often. Especially to children.

I don't see why they're complaining about the lack of 'education'. They're an RV PARK, not a hospital.

Did they really need to put in the life expectancy for them?
Failed pity attempt. :\

I totally agree with what the park owner did. If I was in his situation, I would throw 'em out, too.

 

[Alter Ego]

Yeah, mentioning the life expectancies (especially the foster-father's. I mean, wtf dudes? I thought this was about the child? How does the foster-father's lifespan complicate matters? o.O) were a pretty pathetic guilt trip in my opinion. Also, the quote about innocence was completely irrelevant to the issue. Like Killer-Swift said: it doesn't matter how he got HIV; the issue is that he does have it and thus it should be made sure that no-one else gets contaminated. Besides, if you look at the park owner's comment then a simple paper from a doctor saying it was a-okay (As that quote near the end claims it to be) would have been enough to settle the matter. :\

So yeah, based solely on that article I agree with the park owner's decision. Not ruling out racial issues as a side-motive, but there isn't any evidence of it there. If you don't know whether or not allowing one person to get into the pool will saddle the others with a medical condition that will stay for the rest of their lives then the only responsible thing to do is not to take that risk.

 

[Happy Dude]

I'd Of Done the Exact Same thing as the park Owner.

Fully Grown adults accidently cut themselves in pools. Heck a 2 year old kid would even be more likely too it...And say if another Little child was to come into contact with him it would spread.

The park Owner made the Right decision....Still wondering where being racist comes into this though..Care to explain?

 

[aRedMoon]

I agree completely with the owner, especially when he knew as little as he did. Better safe than sorry, right?

Imagine if HIV was passable through water, and it was given to all the other guests. Who would be in trouble then? The owner. He was doing it to potentially save his guests, and himself. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Gunn]

The owner may have been ignorant but it is obvious precautions were taken place.

 

[doesn't matter]

It saddens me that they had to do such a thing to the child, but one cannot argue that it was not done for the well being of everyone else, though not being allowed to use the shower is somewhat extreme.

Hopefully the owners educate themselves though just so nothing like this happens again

Otter Mii-kun, can you point out how it seems to be a racial issue as well? I don't see anything that would imply that.

Still, as others have mentioned it was an attempt to lay the guilt trip upon the owners in attempt to sensationalise the story a bit.

I like this article though, seems useful for my English studies XD;

 

[Chuchino]

The fact that he was banned from the shower was the most ridiculous thing, I think :/

However, this article villainizes the owner in a way he doesn't deserve. If you can imagine, the average Joe would probably be terrified to swim with an HIV positive kid, and the owner wanted to avoid that. It's understandable.

I don't agree with the fact that those who're HIV positive should be banned from pools and whatnot, but he IS just a child. Without proper supervision, plenty of things could go wrong.

Things like this happen everyday. While I do hope that ignorance of the issue will be corrected as time passes, I feel as though they grabbed hold of this story because of the circumstances. A two-year-old, a sick father.. I do pity them, but I wish they hadn't made it seem so good vs. evil. It wasn't that at all. :/

 

[Jaimes]

Actually, I feel the park owner was wrong and this issue has come about due to a mix of ignorance and paranoia. I also think that people who are agreeing with the decision also reflect this.

There is so much prejudice against people who carry HIV and even more ignorance about HIV and AIDS itself worldwide.

Firstly it is impossible to contract the virus through water.
Basically the HIV cannot survive outside in an environment like this. Not being allowed to shower is ridiculous.

Was it really the Park Owners job?
Not really. He should have consulted a medical specialist. Its a resort, there should be some on hand anyway. Why the park owner took this into his own hands is beyond me.

So basically, I dont think this was a necessary precaution to take. The Park Owner took over a situation of which was based on his paranoia against HIV. It appears he didnt even bother consulting a medical supervisor.

 

[Gary the Magic Fairy]

Actually, I feel the park owner was wrong and this issue has come about due to a mix of ignorance and paranoia. I also think that people who are agreeing with the decision also reflect this.

He was trying to protect everyone in the park from getting HIV. WHY is that so 'wrong'? He's an RV Park owner, not a doctor. Why is ignorance of medical issues so wrong?

He should have consulted a medical specialist.

"We didn't know what the risk was. That's why we asked for something from their doctor or the county health department."

Wtf?

 

[Jaimes]

He was trying to protect everyone in the park from getting HIV. WHY is that so 'wrong'? He's an RV Park owner, not a doctor. Why is ignorance of medical issues so wrong?

Its not his job to 'protect the park'. He's an RV Park owner, not a superhero. He simply owns it.

Either way, why was he so sure that he was taking a precaution? RV Parks have qualified (ANYONE with a medical license) people that know about HIV, even most students know how the virus can be transmitted.
What I'm saying is that Ken Zadnichek should have consulted somebody himself rather than taking an impulsive and ignorant decision. It would have been easy to do.

"We didn't know what the risk was. That's why we asked for something from their doctor or the county health department."

So he asked for something.. But if you read on the second page of the article:

Medical experts said the HIV virus is unable to spread through casual contact.
"There's absolutely no way you can get HIV from a pool or a shower casual contact using the same facilities," said David Little, director of South Alabama CARES, an AIDS education and outreach organization that serves 12 counties in south Alabama. "It just doesn't happen."

Of which if that something was provided. The above or similar would be stated. It is more likely that since the family went on holiday, they would have travelled a distance and a simple statement was difficult to obtain, which could easily be found online.

RV park owner told them they weren't welcome after discovering their 2-year-old foster son had the HIV virus.

Some Americans are not educated enough about HIV.
"They don't know near enough, especially that children are totally innocent and represent no danger to the public," she said.

These two statements also in the article support my argument that the decision was based on a single persons lack of education and a biased opinion towards HIV/AIDS.

 

[Gary the Magic Fairy]

Its not his job to 'protect the park'. He's an RV Park owner, not a superhero. He simply owns it.

It's not his job to know anything about HIV, either. Yet you seem to insist that it is, and that he should have consulted someone. As you said, "He simply owns it."

RV park owner told them they weren't welcome after discovering their 2-year-old foster son had the HIV virus.

Some Americans are not educated enough about HIV.
"They don't know near enough, especially that children are totally innocent and represent no danger to the public," she said.

These two statements also in the article support my argument that the decision was based on a single persons lack of education and a biased opinion towards HIV/AIDS.

That's all the support you got? A misleading statement about how he supposedly just 'threw' them out of the park, and the biased opinion of the woman? Plus, what does the child's 'innocence' have to do with anything?

 

[Jaimes]

I cant believe your still trying to argue back. lololol

It's not his job to know anything about HIV, either. Yet you seem to insist that it is, and that he should have consulted someone. As you said, "He simply owns it."

Exactly! (shot yourself in the foot there. pwnt). If he knows NOTHING about diseases, then why is he correct in deciding which precautions to take?
There are loads of people around him that could easily decide what to do (thanks for making me repeat myself though).

That's all the support you got? A misleading statement about how he supposedly just 'threw' them out of the park, and the biased opinion of the woman? Plus, what does the child's 'innocence' have to do with anything?

Erm No, thats obviously not all the support... :/ Pretty much the whole article supports my view.
I used those two comments that show how people today are uneducated about a pandemic and life threatening diseases.

Also the second statement is focusing on the first line: "Some Americans are not educated enough about HIV." This is clearly not a biased opinion of a woman, it's a total fact.
However what I have noticed is your interpretation IS biased. Are you saying that this child with HIV was a danger to the public? When he wasnt? This to me again, shows what prejudice people (and evidently you) have about HIV/AIDS based on the little knowledge they have.

HIV does have a bad reputation, mainly since it is unjustly associated with STDs, homosexuality, monkeys, prostitution, third world poverty etc. Just because someone is ill doesnt mean they should be ostracized from a society, when they are no threat to it.



Finally heres another simplified example. Say a boy, for example is born with a limb missing... It happens now and again. The headteacher is clueless about this and thinks to kick the boy out to prevent it being passed on. Would this be acceptable?
Obviously not. Because you and I know it is impossible for this problem to be transferred. He is not a threat to anyone. This shows that with a little bit of knowledge, how much a difference peoples decisions can make.

 

[Cross]

The only thing that came to mind after that (And sorry if this offends) was:

"OLOL POOLS HAVE STDS".

Seriously though, that''s weird all around. ._o

 

[Happy Dude]

"If he knows NOTHING about diseases, then why is he correct in deciding which precautions to take?"

Because He Owns the Park HE is The one who makes the decisions. Also Let's Say If the Child Did Cut Himself Somehow and another Kid came into Contact with the Blood And got sick? Who would be in Trouble? The Park Owner of course.

Although it is pointless to argue something That is already over

Edit : The Article Is obviously Sided with the Kid......I for one would Love to see What the Park owner's side of the story

Oh Btw " Its not his job to 'protect the park'. He's an RV Park owner, not a superhero. He simply owns it. "

Taken from the Article "I'm not responsible for their feelings. I'm responsible for the well-being of everybody in the park"

Well played But Pwned

 

[Jaimes]

*sighs*

Because He Owns the Park HE is The one who makes the decisions. Also Let's Say If the Child Did Cut Himself Somehow and another Kid came into Contact with the Blood And got sick? Who would be in Trouble? The Park Owner of course.

The park owner was taking a precaution against the impossible occuring!?
Are you saying that people with HIV should be prevented from normal activities? That is 40+ million people!
There would probably be about 5 other people in the resort with it as well and about 25% of the adults would also be carrying an STI. A large percentage would even have other non-threatening illnesses (flu, diabetes etc). Should they have been removed from the park?
"Came into contact and got sick." That kind of reflects your knowledge on the issue. Before posting bigoted opinions, try to do a bit of research first.:)

Edit : The Article Is obviously Sided with the Kid......I for one would Love to see What the Park owner's side of the story

It does show the Owners side of the story. The article appears to side with the child, since he was victimized and the owner was wrong to do so.

Taken from the Article "I'm not responsible for their feelings. I'm responsible for the well-being of everybody in the park"

More realistically wouldnt that task be down to the supervisors in a resort? Yes, the owner is responsible, but not for passing medical decisions based on his own paranoia.

Although it is pointless to argue something That is already over

Hooray. A sensible comment at last. :D

Well played But Pwned

ROFL. Or Not.


Finally if you read the 300+ comments of the article:
https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/comments?type=story&id=3356281
Almost all of them side with my opinion, and yes they agree that the issue was caused by the owners igonrance and prejudice. Many of the comments also come from professional medical workers or people with HIV/AIDS themselves.

The only thing that came to mind after that (And sorry if this offends) was:

"OLOL POOLS HAVE STDS".

Lol, thats pretty harsh.
If it cheers you up, of the 23000 people who have registered on this site, unless a cure is discovered soon, over 130 of us are likely to contract the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. The chances of getting it are even more likely if you do not take correct precautions or if you have little knowledge.
Because the prevalence is so high, it is no reason to use it as a joking matter.
Also, well over 50% of us in our lifetime are going to come into contact with some sort of STI/STD.:classic:

 

[.-'Infernal Hylian'-.]

i feel sorry for the little guy and also for his father only 18 months to live poor guy.

 

[Gary the Magic Fairy]

I cant believe your still trying to argue back. lololol

Ugh, fine. Forget it. You obviously won't change your opinions about how the owner is supposedly prejudiced and everyone with differing opinions is totally ignorant, so why should I even bother?
The poor family was totally wronged, the owner is a horrible man, and we're all morons. Whatever. ¬¬

Wtf does 'lololol' mean, anyway? :\

However what I have noticed is your interpretation IS biased. Are you saying that this child with HIV was a danger to the public? When he wasnt? This to me again, shows what prejudice people (and evidently you) have about HIV/AIDS based on the little knowledge they have.

Oh, and your prejudice against the uneducated is SO much better... you shouldn't just assume everyone is prejudiced, either.

 

[Jaimes]

Ugh, fine. Forget it. You obviously won't change your opinions about how the owner is supposedly prejudiced and everyone with differing opinions is totally ignorant, so why should I even bother?
The poor family was totally wronged, the owner is a horrible man, and we're all morons. Whatever. ¬¬

I don't see how you can convince me to change my opinion, since your argument is total rubbish. All you've repeatedly said is that the owner was 'taking a precaution'.
I never once said the owner was horrible. Just that he had no idea about how to deal with the situation, was paranoid, prejudiced and evidently to lazy to do some research before taking a rash decision.
Also I never said anyone was a moron. Stop throwing around false accusations. I'm just arguing against your viewpoints, with a better and more logical argument.
If you think you are so right, why have so many people have felt and reacted so strongly to this? Why, out of the 300+ comments on the page do around 80% of them support the Glover family, when some of them carry HIV thereselves, some are doctors? Do you have any reason why your arguments are more valid? Why would Good Morning America, AOL and the Alabama Newspaper favour the family and bother to report on an issue if it was incorrect? (which as a news report, should be unbiased)?
To be blunt, it is quite obvious that the park owner was wrong. So far, the only support I have seen here are from people who are clearly quite uneducated about the HIV issue.

Oh, and your prejudice against the uneducated is SO much better... you shouldn't just assume everyone is prejudiced, either.

You do know what you wrote don't you? I'll just remind you:

A misleading statement about how he supposedly just 'threw' them out of the park, and the biased opinion of the woman?

The woman wrote in a single line paragraph: "Some Americans are not educated enough about HIV." How you can call this statement biased is simply beyond me. This simply shows me how unaware you are about the situation, since it is cold hard fact!? It begs me to question how much do you know about this virus?

Wtf does 'lololol' mean, anyway?

That was implying that I was laughing at your attempt to counter argue, with the SAME weak argument and point. Even though, that it was clear that the Park Owner was wrong, regardless if his intentions were good or not.

It is clear that some people are too stubborn to accept they were wrong.