A bit old, but I had discovered that until recently a positive HIV
test was not a required reportable disease, while just about every
other communicable disease have long been.  I think the following
shows that preventing further spread of HIV is the last thing the
activists want:

(Jan. 1999)
http://www.sfaf.org/policy/hivpolicywatch/9901pw.html#Assemblywoman%20Migden

"Unfortunately, in New York and increasingly in California, names
reporting advocates have attempted to link HIV reporting to the
issue of partner notification, arguing that names reporting is
necessary to ensure that public health officials are able to notify
the sexual and needle-sharing partners of HIV infected individuals
about their potential exposure to HIV."

-------

The law has since been changed but to require non-name reporting.
The state now has numbers for new HIV infections, it simply does
not know who is infected and cannot take action to prevent them
from spreading the virus.  What I still can't figure out is why
previously diagnosed "AIDS" cases were reportable but not HIV
cases?  Who cares if an HIV patient has progressed to the final
stages of AIDS, and at the time the law was written it didn't
matter because there was (and still is) no cure.  What possible
use is data showing how many people currently have the final
AIDS symptoms but not to have data showing how many more people
will progress to that stage in the next several years?  If
anything, "AIDS" should be less-reportable disease because by
that stage the symptoms of HIV infection are very obvious and
the patient much less likely to infect others.