The quickie version of this is that Cirque Du Soleil in it's latest
statement to the San Francisco Human Rights Commission, they admitted that
they will not hire performers who are HIV positive. You can skip to the
bottom for the latest and some links.
In any case, in many discussions in this newsgroup about other things to do
while in Vegas and Orlando (and elsewhere) to ride coasters, Cirque Du
Soleil's shows have come up as an option. This led to a brief discussion
-- one I admittedly started -- of the fact that they fired performer
Matthew Cusick from their Mystere show in Las Vegas for no other reason
than because he had HIV
A few people here claimed that I didn't have all the "facts". They claimed
that they did offer him another performing job. They also claimed that
there were probabaly other factors in Cusick's firing.
Well, their sources turned out to be an ANONYMOUS post made to a gay
news/discussion site by someone claiming to be the significant other of a
performer who read about the case on another anonymous discussion group for
Cirque performers. That's a source almost as good as the Dippin Dots guy!
And those "facts" appear to not be true. It seems that they never did
offer him another performing job. And they openly admitted that the ONLY
reason that they fired him was because he had HIV. They claimed that "Our
employment decision was made solely for safety reasons." Cirque themselves
denied the talk of there being other factors, such as his performance or
attitude, as some Cirque fans here claimed (despite having no actual
In fact, their statements about the alleged risk associated with the
performances is suspect itself. There is not a single known case of HIV
transmission from athletics or gymnastics. Long time AIDS experts have
come out against their decision. Athletics and gymnastics organizations do
NOT recommend ANY restrictions on HIV positive athletes and performers. In
fact, Cirque's own doctor cleared him for his performances.
But the latest statement from Cirque is even more damning. They are now
openly admitting that they will not hire HIV positive people for
performance jobs. Instead, perhaps, they should be dishwashers! Yet,
somehow, despite this being against the law, they try to claim that it
The San Francisco Human Rights Commission has started another investigation
against Cirque. In their statement to the commission, Cirque said, "There
are many employment positions that would be suited to an individual with
HIV. These positions include dishwashers, dining room attendants, prep
cooks, box office staff, box office assistants, ushers, hosts/hostesses,
food and beverage staff, public sales assistants, merchandising staff and
hawkers. Any one of these positions could be filled by an individual with
It will be interesting to see how Cirque's supporters here will defend
these actions. Of course, they'll use fear and ignorance, not science, in
doing so. The simple truth is that there is negligible risk of HIV
transmission from ANY of Cirque's acts. The risk of injury and death form
the performances themselves is actually significantly greater. And the
simple truth is that in firing Matthew Cusick and in continuing to refuse
to hire performers who have HIV, they are violating the anti-descrimination
laws of the United States and most states.
Nevada's Equal Employment Opportunities Commission in Nevada should be
finishing up their investigation this month. Given Cirque's own
statements, I can't imagine that they're going to prevail. But will they
settle, or take it to full court, where they'll undoubtedly lose?
And now picket lines are showing up at Cirque shows.
Something to think about before you buy a ticket....
The latest updates, including quotes from Cirque's letter to the San
Francisco Human Rights Commission:
Cirque's open admission that they fired Matthew Cusick only because he had
David Hamburger, davi...@STOPSPAMbellatlantic.net, Boston, MA
PLEASE remove "STOPSPAM" from my address when replying via e-mail.
"I think that gay marriage is something that
should be between a man and a woman,"
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
>And now picket lines are showing up at Cirque shows.
Jesus, and here I thought that I would probably never go to a Cirqe
du Solay show in my life.
But the opportunity to walk through one of those picket lines seems
like it could make it worthwhile!!
I guess if you had HIV then you might think differently.
Or if you were a screaming, flaming queen like David Hamburger presents
I went to La Nouba again on Satuday. Oh no! I AM THE ANTI-GAY!!!1!
> Athletics and gymnastics organizations do
> NOT recommend ANY restrictions on HIV positive athletes and performers.
does not the nba cease all play at the simple sight of blood?
> Jesus, and here I thought that I would probably never go to a Cirqe
>du Solay show in my life.
> But the opportunity to walk through one of those picket lines seems
>like it could make it worthwhile!!
> Walt Breymier
I don't know. When I go to acrobatic shows, I always like the added
excitement of that possibility of catching an incurable fatal disease
if someone gets injured near me.
Winner of the 2nd Annual C. Montgomery Burns Award for
Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence.
"What an awful dream, 1s and 0s everywhere... I thought I saw a 2." - Bender
The content of this post, and all previous posts made by this user, is 100%
opinion. Any similarity between this post and the truth is purely
coincidental. Anyone who reads this post and draws conclusions about it is
doing so by their choice. How they use those conclusions to direct their
own lives and opinions from that point forward is absolutely a result of
their own cognitive abilities and is in no way related or legally binded to
this poster. NO individual, business entity, or legal authority should use
the content of this post, or any other post by the originator, in whole, or
in part, to assist in making a decision that could affect the lives of any
of the inhabitants of planet Earth, since the content may not be true.
I never said that anyone who goes to see a Cirque show is anti-gay, so I'm not
sure why you made that particular comment. Based on the fact that a few of my
HIV+ friends are healthy and fine, my personal choice is to no longer spend my
$ on Cirque shows as I do not agree with their hiring practices.
"who LOVES Cirque du Soleil shows"
Why is that? If I had an incurable fatal disease, I wouldn't go
around acting like it's my right to put others at risk of catching it.
If you have AIDS, the people around you should know it, PERIOD. It is
not your right to not tell me I will die if some of your blood enters
> I don't know. When I go to acrobatic shows, I always like the added
> excitement of that possibility of catching an incurable fatal disease
> if someone gets injured near me.
LOL! I woulnd't think there'd be any more risk there than standing behind
someone with AIDS on an ecsalator.
In fact, I bet someone's far more likely to fall on the escalator and get
their AIDS all over you than one of the Cirque performers. I don't think
they go flying off into the audience bleeding with any sort of frequency.
>"Rastus O'Ginga" <ras...@kingwoodXXXXXcable.net> wrote:
>> I don't know. When I go to acrobatic shows, I always like the added
>> excitement of that possibility of catching an incurable fatal disease
>> if someone gets injured near me.
>LOL! I woulnd't think there'd be any more risk there than standing behind
>someone with AIDS on an ecsalator.
>In fact, I bet someone's far more likely to fall on the escalator and get
>their AIDS all over you than one of the Cirque performers.
Another reason why AIDS is taken way too lightly in this society.
> I don't think
>they go flying off into the audience bleeding with any sort of frequency.
Why is that? It's a very physical performace with people flying all
over the place. Plenty of opportunities to get cut. Obviously it is
a big deal or they never would have made such an un-PC move when they
probably have a very heavily gay audience and troop.
Because the gays think they should get their way.
Plain and simple: AIDS kills, and can not be cured. As an added
bonus, it is easily passed from person to person through blood, and
Now, why the fuck would I want to be around someone with it at all,
let alone in any sort of physical situation.
HIV+ people are treated like a disease BECAUSE THEY ARE A DISEASE!!!
Whether or not they deserved to get the disease doesn't matter. Thye
should realize that us folks who DON'T have AIDS aren't really looking
to acquire it. And that can be easily accomplished by avoiding all
people with AIDS.
Maybe because the possibility that a loved one will get HIV and you will have
to be around them, or will you just abandon them? Or maybe you have no loved
ones because of your ignorant attitude? Wake up.
/- Ron -\
> >In fact, I bet someone's far more likely to fall on the escalator and get
> >their AIDS all over you than one of the Cirque performers.
> Another reason why AIDS is taken way too lightly in this society.
I'm confused....? What do you mean? I was just making a comparison. I
think that if you spend any time in public you're subjecting yourself to
that risk, not just when you go see a performance. Like, if you're in an
airplane, what if the plane crashes, and someone with AIDS gets sucked into
the engine, and they spray a huge AIDS blood cloud over an entire city?
Maybe you should start wearing a mask.
> > I don't think
> >they go flying off into the audience bleeding with any sort of frequency.
> Why is that?
> It's a very physical performace with people flying all
> over the place. Plenty of opportunities to get cut. Obviously it is
> a big deal or they never would have made such an un-PC move when they
> probably have a very heavily gay audience and troop.
I don't know, I was kind of under the impression that like all gay people
had AIDS anyway.
> I don't know, I was kind of under the impression that like all gay people
> had AIDS anyway.
All gay people and all drug users, last I knew < /sarcasm >
Hey, good idea. I should make it a point to spend lots of time with
folks with incurable, transmittable, deadly diseases that their own
life choices caused them to contract. I bet if I did that, the
chances of a loved one getting it would even increase.
Great idea, dumbass.
ugh, there ya go again!
Yea I'm sure someone's gonna CHOOSE a lifestyle that would result in deadly
Get with it, silly child, did you CHOOSE to be Straight?
No. I wasn't aware that all HIV-infected people were gay. I wonder
what that says about Magic Johnson.
> Plain and simple: AIDS kills, and can not be cured. As an added
> bonus, it is easily passed from person to person through blood, and
> possibly spit.
Ummm No. You cannot be infected through spit. It's amazing that
people will claim doctors don't know what they are talking about,
especially when the individual making such a claim has no scientific
> Now, why the fuck would I want to be around someone with it at all,
> let alone in any sort of physical situation.
> HIV+ people are treated like a disease BECAUSE THEY ARE A DISEASE!!!
Nope. They are not. Do you avoid people suffering from cancer? Even
if an HIV-infected person does start bleeding, unless you drink
his/her blood or rub an open wound on the blood you have nothing to
> Whether or not they deserved to get the disease doesn't matter. Thye
> should realize that us folks who DON'T have AIDS aren't really looking
> to acquire it. And that can be easily accomplished by avoiding all
> people with AIDS.
That is definitely the most ignorant statement I've ever read. When
you show me your science degree from an accredited University, then
maybe I'll consider your argumentation (unlike me, who does have a
degree in biochemistry). You cannot "catch" AIDS unless there is an
exchange of blood, semen, vaginal secretion, or breast milk.
But it really doesn't matter what you think. It is against FEDERAL
LAW to discriminate against persons with HIV. Plain and simple.
Unless you are engaged in sexual intercourse with an infected person
(or sharing needles, for that matter), then you are NOT being exposed
to the virus. You do not have any legitimate legal or scientific
argument to make your point, other than your bigotry.
Kevin, Moschella is probabaly the most self-hating gay person who has ever
posted to RRC. Don't take anything he says personally. It's a shame that
he feels the need to attack anyone in here (gay or not) to build up his
sense of self worth to make his life tolerable. It's truly sad.
If you still want to watch Cirque's performers, but don't want to support
the companies, you can see most of their shows for free on Bravo regularly.
Or download the videos on your favorite file-sharing service.
It's interesting, though. When I posted on this subject, he stated that I
should get the facts. His "facts" turned out to come from anonymous posts
to a gay news site. So, when I actually DID get the rest of the facts, and
posted them here, he had nothing constructive to say, as usual, and
resorted to homophobic name-calling. So VERY typical.
And come on, guys, even I know better than to try to get into anything
resembling a rational discussion on HIV with Rastus. I loved Iain's
hysterically sarcastic comment about a person with HIV getting sucked into
the engine of a plane!
A whole lot of us have been to a lot of Cirque shows over the years. Just
a question: has anyone actually ever been spattered with blood? I know I
sure as hell haven't. I love this ridiculous hysterical notion that the
performers are just bleeding all over the place. If that were true, I
doubt that they'd have ever become the international sensations that
they've become, HIV fears or not. Yes, people pay to get spattered with
paint at Blue Man Group, but I suspect that spattering people with blood
wouldn't go over quite so well! ;-)
But all of this will come to a head in the next month. The NV Equal
Employment Opportunities Commission will be finishing up their
investigation shortly. And let's be honest here. Cirque doesn't have a
legal leg to stand on.
Perhaps it's just more of the arrogance that they are famous for. I
suspect that they just assume that they are so special that they can get
away with anything they want, regardless of the law. They've already been
cited for child labor law violations repeatedly.
Should we start a pool on how much they end up settling for? Then again,
they might just be arrogant enough to go against any sane legal advice and
take it to full court, expecting to win, and losing BIG.
I wonder how many other cities and states that they visit will investigate
the illegal hiring practices of the company when they travel. San
Francisco already is. I'm sure New York will. They're also coming to
Boston. While they are appearing outside the city, the state also has an
anti-descrimination law which covers disability and HIV status. They're
also in violation of Federal laws.
I'm sure their lawyers will be kept very busy. All because of irrational
ignorance that is dated by over a decade and is now generally only spewed
by ignorant people like Rastus.
I don't know. But I do choose to not share needles, or have
unprotected sex with a group of humans known to have a very high
occurrence of AIDS.
To do otherwise would be beyond stupid, and quite honestly, deserving
to face the consequences. The gall these people have to think it's
their right to not tell anyone they have a deadly, incurable,
contagious disease is simply beyond comprehension.
To think there should be a law protecting such things is putting your
personal desires over that of Humanity. I doubt St. Peter has much
time for such folks.
That would be the people of Africa right?
> Hey, good idea. I should make it a point to spend lots of time with
> folks with incurable, transmittable, deadly diseases that their own
> life choices caused them to contract.
Tell that to my childhood best friend who was a hemophiliac, received a
tainted blood-transfusion, and died of AIDS when he was fourteen years old.
Your obvious paranoia only confirms what people have thought all along. Please
educate yourself, buddy.
You really are an ignorant person, aren't you? Did it ever cross your
shriveled up mind that people with AIDS are "people" and that they might have
something called feelings and compassion? How dare you to be so ignorant and
uncaring to make such statements. Your really are an idiot and I fee sorry for
people like you. You are such a disgrace to mankind.
So if someone is having sex with an HIV+ person, it means that they're having
unprotected sex? Wow, as a gay person, that's new to me.
>Like, if you're in an
>airplane, what if the plane crashes, and someone with AIDS gets sucked into
>the engine, and they spray a huge AIDS blood cloud over an entire city?
>Maybe you should start wearing a mask.
LMAO. I'm only quoting a part of it, but this is a great post, Iain. The fact
that it's so ridiculous further drives home the nonsense of some of the
arguments going on here.
"C'mon and take a Free Ride." -- Edgar Winter Group
Spit, my Aunt Fanny. Can you cite a reliable source for that idiot factoid,
preferably one you don't receive through the fillings in your teeth?
<< HIV+ people are treated like a disease BECAUSE THEY ARE A DISEASE!!! >>
At long last, sir, have you lost all sense of decency?
(Well, um, yeah...)
Great example! That's why people with AIDS need to be identified and
have to let others know of their disease.
So, you basically think AIDS is a fairly unimportant health issue, and
not really a threat to folks?
Yes, because there are lots of people who chose to take dirty blood at
hospitals following car accidents knowing full well what might just happen!
I seem to remember "do not judge, lest ye be judged himself" being in the
bible. Remember that one? God, that stuff killed in 29AD!
Are you having unprotected gay sex, Jason?
> So, you basically think AIDS is a fairly unimportant health issue, and
> not really a threat to folks?
No, not really. I find other things more enamouring to stew over. Like
where Canada Post has displaced my new snowboard. There are countless other
life threatning diseases that could capture you at any point.
>No. I wasn't aware that all HIV-infected people were gay. I wonder
>what that says about Magic Johnson.
Yeah, you're right, hardly AIDS victims are gay, what was I thinking.
>> Plain and simple: AIDS kills, and can not be cured. As an added
>> bonus, it is easily passed from person to person through blood, and
>> possibly spit.
>Ummm No. You cannot be infected through spit.
Yeah, again, you're right. People never ever have blood in their
>Nope. They are not. Do you avoid people suffering from cancer?
Umm, no becuase cancer isn't contagious.
>if an HIV-infected person does start bleeding, unless you drink
>his/her blood or rub an open wound on the blood you have nothing to
Hmm, I wonder how many non-gay people buy that. It amazes me how far
gays go to try and marginalize the seriousness of AIDS, yet in the
next breath talk about how badly we need AIDS research. Then of
course, they want to be treated as disabled from the AIDS too. But,
they also want totally anonymity so no one knows that they have a
fatal, incurable, contagious disease.
>> Whether or not they deserved to get the disease doesn't matter. Thye
>> should realize that us folks who DON'T have AIDS aren't really looking
>> to acquire it. And that can be easily accomplished by avoiding all
>> people with AIDS.
>That is definitely the most ignorant statement I've ever read. When
>you show me your science degree from an accredited University, then
>maybe I'll consider your argumentation (unlike me, who does have a
>degree in biochemistry).
Should I fax you a copy of my Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical
Engineering from Purdue University?
> You cannot "catch" AIDS unless there is an
>exchange of blood, semen, vaginal secretion, or breast milk.
Of course vomit and spit often contain blood. And of couse, sweat can
mix with blood coming out of a cut and sling off of your body too.
Ever watch a professional or college basketball game? When blood
shows up everything stops IMMEDIATELY and the bloody players must
leave until every drop of blood is cleaned off of them and their
uniform. I wonder why all those millionaire NBA players wanted that
>But it really doesn't matter what you think. It is against FEDERAL
>LAW to discriminate against persons with HIV.
Ahh, I was waiting for that. It was ruled that you can't deny medical
treatment of an AIDS victim. That was then broadly extrapolated to
discrimination in general by AIDS activists. The validity of that
extrapolation has yet to be proven. If it was true, the whole CDS
case would have been thrown out of court, and it obviously was NOT.
Discrimination NEVER trumps public health concerns, as any non-moron
would know. If it did, a blind person could sue Metro for
discrimination for not giving them a bus driver job. The Court has
ruled that when health is a concern, discrimination is moot. And
AIDS, regardless of your stupid biased opinions, IS a MAJOR health
concern. And it ain't getting any less major with time.
> Plain and simple.
>Unless you are engaged in sexual intercourse with an infected person
>(or sharing needles, for that matter), then you are NOT being exposed
>to the virus. You do not have any legitimate legal or scientific
>argument to make your point, other than your bigotry.
Ahh, that's right, since I don't agree with your obvious expert
opinion, I'm a bigot. I'm sure you think I'm a racist, homophobic,
agist, Nazi too.
The US public will absolutely NEVER accept AIDS as a non-issue to
public health. Obviously becuase that would be insanely stupid.
Just give it up.
What about Hepititus?
>You really are an ignorant person, aren't you? Did it ever cross your
>shriveled up mind that people with AIDS are "people" and that they might have
>something called feelings and compassion? How dare you to be so ignorant and
>uncaring to make such statements. Your really are an idiot and I fee sorry for
>people like you. You are such a disgrace to mankind.
The world is full of bad things, and we ALL deal with them. But to
think that your personal suffering is more important than the safety
of the rest of the world is so self-centered it should be a crime.
If people with AIDS have compassion, they should realize that it is
important that they don't spread it to others and give them the
disease. They should realize how horrible it is to have it.
I don't think folks with AIDS are evil or bad people, but they
absolutely ARE a health risk to everyone on this planet. That's got
to suck for them, but it simply does not lessen their risk to
everyone. How can you not understand that?
Do they spread their disease at will to the public? Of course not.
Do they pose a threat to where a simple accident could end up having
fatal consequences? Yep!
It's the same tired argument we hear from convicted sex offenders.
Dispite an extremely high reoccurance of offending, the fuckballs
think their privacy outweighs the risks they pose to society.
We better start letting retarded epileptic people drive. Damn, how
insensitive are we.
> What about Hepititus?
OMG! That reminds me. There was blood on the skating rink downtown last
weekend, and my friends and I were joking that the blood was in the shape of
an airplane, and it was the "Hepititus Airplane", and it would deliver
Hepititus to all the good little girls and boys. Joyeux Noel!
If it's so minor, why is there a World AIDS Day. I mean, there isn't
a World Cancer Day.
Nobody wears Cancer ribbons.
>>>Nope. They are not. Do you avoid people suffering from cancer?
>>Umm, no becuase cancer isn't contagious.
>What about Hepititus?
Yeah, I guess we shouldn't be able to knwo if the cooks at restaurants
have Hepitius, right? After all, that would discriminate against
them. Folks with Hepititus should be allowed to secretly be waiters
This comparison is totally invalid. Sex Offenders are criminals. AIDS patients
are not. What other things should we do? Should liberals be forced to wear
insignias showing their political affiliation? Should those of Sub-Saharan
distiniction be differentiated (they might have Ebola!)? Native Americas (Hanta
virus!) War vets (Legionnaires!)?
>We better start letting retarded epileptic people drive. Damn, how
insensitive are >we.
Do you consider allowing AIDS patients to exist in society to be of an equal
danger as to allowing retarded epileptics to drive? You can't possibly be
-thinks its funny that a circus perfomer getting an artery tapped and flying
into a crowd is a definite possibility, whereas a gay dude with AIDS getting
sucked out a cargo door on a A300 and put through a jet engine isn't-
I see; so you're okay with a normal waiter or chef bleeding into your food?
They're called "blood transfusion", Jason. Say it with me. B-L-O-O-D
he will NEVER have any
You were talking about D-I-R-T-Y B-L-O-O-D, and people knowingly
taking it. This is some defense of AIDS? We need AIDS tainted blood
for transfusions, so people can live so they can die a painful death
Oh, that's right, I remember everyone wearing those at Oscar night
If I have ot choose between one without a fatal, incurable, contagious
disease, or someone with AIDS. Yeah, I'm pretty sure I'll choose the
normal one. You go right ahead and choose the one with AIDS. That'll
make him feel better, I'm sure.
> So, you basically think AIDS is a fairly unimportant health issue, and
> not really a threat to folks?
In all sincere honesty, Jason? Yes. HIV infection is NOT as easy to
"acquire" as you may believe. In fact, you really have to want to try to
get it to get it.
I've gotta say, Alan, I didn't think you could prove yourself less
intelligent to me. But you successfully have.
And, I feel continuing the argument with you may actually lower my
intelligence, so I have to bow out now.
I hear ya, Kip. Best buddy of mine..."straight" as an arrow...received
"tainted" blood after a *nasty* motorcycle accident in 1982. I'll never
forget how _all_ of his "friends" and his family disowned him when he came
down with AIDS in 1989. So sad...how so many people judged him for things
he never did based upon circumstances out of his control. Simply not fair.
-b "who was a friend through to the end, regardless..."
> If people with AIDS have compassion, they should realize that it is
> important that they don't spread it to others and give them the
> disease. They should realize how horrible it is to have it.
> I don't think folks with AIDS are evil or bad people, but they
> absolutely ARE a health risk to everyone on this planet. That's got
> to suck for them, but it simply does not lessen their risk to
> everyone. How can you not understand that?
Ya know, Jason...I always used to cut you some "slack" when everyone else on
RRC thought you were an asshole and just wished you would drop dead. But I
gotta say -- given your notes in this thread -- you lead me to believe you
are of the same narrow mindset as my ex-boss (fired, btw!) who FIRMLY
believed that "the world's AIDS crisis would be solved (!) if we only just
put all of the AIDS people on an island somewhere ... isolated from the rest
of us 'normal' people!"
I don't believe you're much farther from his stance, no?
> And, I feel continuing the argument with you may actually lower my
> intelligence, so I have to bow out now.
Dude, you just got AIDS.
I wouldn't choose either. If someone bled into my food, I wouldn't eat it.
I was using this literary element called "sarcasm". No one would take dirty
>This is some defense of AIDS?
How do you defend a disease that causes certain death (unless you have the coin
for really expensive meds)?
>We need AIDS tainted blood
>for transfusions, so people can live so they can die a painful death
Who's supporting AIDS tainted blood transfusions? I'm certainly not.
This is a stupid argument to have in the first place. Not everyone that has
AIDS knows it, and those who do know it probably aren't going to donate blood.
Besides, even if they did, blood should be tested anyways. Unless, of course,
you think that by forcing people with non-curable, communicable diseases to
identify themselves is good enough for blood donation screening (which almost
seems to be your argument).
Awww. I must have hit a nerve. Besides, unless you're banging other gay men in
the ass (or shooting up heroin with your buddies), why would you be so paranoid
about AIDS anyways?
Cancer isn't communicable. It may be hereditary, but it's not communicable.
AIDS, although limited in this ability to only be a biohazard level 3
disease [I believe, might be a 2], is.
Probably those scantily clad women at IAAPA he's always drooling over. Wonder
if his wife knows what he does when he's away.........
Both treatable and vaccinateable.
Shoot, what about rabies?
Bad choice, maybe.
AIDS is at least treatable, though the drugs are rather expensive. Are there
vaccines for Hep B & C?
>Shoot, what about rabies?
>Bad choice, maybe.
Wouldn't just about any VD work?
For what it's worth... aren't all three of those populations usually
quarantined when symptomatic?
Apparently there is now a vaccine for Ebola [post- and pre-infection]. Has
something like a 50% effectiveness. The trick to Ebola is to survive for
more than three days. If you can last that long, the disease isn't that hard
to fight of. It's just that the effects of it are usually fatal. (50-99%,
depending on the strain in question)