I would think HIV. It won't kill you quickly, but it will eventually contribute to one's death. There have only been maybe one or two people cured (I forget if it came back or not).
Once you show symptoms of rabies, you are dead in about 10 days, with 100% percent certainty. You might live 100 years after contracting HIV (we don't know because we haven't known about HIV for 100 years.)
Sure, but some people survive rabies. You're talking lethality with a 99.9% kill rate for rabies vs 100% kill rate for HIV. They're just different timeframes.
Not to mention, you are liking about symptomatic cases. It's possible to cure non symptomatic cases of rabies, but that's not possible with HIV.
Resistance isn't immunity. It's possible there are some people with innate 'resistance' to rabies.
"HIV, untreated, is very deadly, but not nearly as deadly as rabies."
You might want to look up the definition of deadly. They both lead to death at a high rate - HIV at 100% eventual fatality and 99.9+% for symptomatic rabies. Again, pre and post exposure treatments for rabies are much more effective than for HIV. HIV has a higher fatality rate and less effective pre and post exposure curative treatment. It's pretty easy to compare 100% to 99.9% and know which one is bigger.
You are simply wrong about that. Even without any treatment at all, you are wrong about that. I'm getting the sense that HIV being the worst possible is some matter of ideology to you, as though you think rabies being worse somehow diminishes the importance of addressing HIV. I suggest you go read the wikipedia page for both of these viruses with an impartial attitude.
reply