How the war on AIDS was lost | Hacker News Reader

How the war on AIDS was lost

aidwatchers.com

8 pointscwan10 comments

Read the actual survey: http://data.unaids.org/pub/Report/2009/JC1700_Epi_Update_200...

It contains some very interesting information:

* AIDS has basically stabilized world wide. The number of new infections is only slightly higher than the number of deaths

* AIDS does not seem related to war or conflict zones in Africa. The warzones have low HIV prevalence and the most proposperous countries have high HIV

* AIDS seems to be a problem in Southern Africa and not over the entire continent

* Divorced people seem the most likely to have HIV

A quote:

Adult HIV prevalence in Côte d’Ivoire (3.7%) is more than twice as high as in Liberia (1.7%) or Guinea (1.6%), even though these West African countries share national borders (UNAIDS, 2008). Within the relatively small nation of Benin, a more than 12-fold variation in HIV prevalence among pregnant women (ranging from 0.4% to 3.8%) has been documented among the country’s depart- ments

* HIV peaked in the mid 1990s. We are now in a decline period. The epidemic is not getting worse - it's getting better

* There is no significant correlation between prevalence of sexual concurrency and HIV prevalence at the country or community level

* Clinical trials have confirmed the results from observational epidemiology that male circumcision reduces transmission of HIV among men

For sub-Saharan Africa as a whole, median reported HIV prevalence among sex workers is 19%

In a study in Mombasa, Kenya, 43.0% of men who have sex only with other men tested HIV-positive

I'll read the entire article later and write up anything interesting I find. But in general, the facts about AIDS do not really sync with the stereotypes.

Also check out Hans Rosling's Ted Talk on HIV:

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_the_truth_about_hiv.ht...

The Catholic church will have you believe that that the only prevention method is abstinence - which really hasn't helped the African continent in curbing their HIV infection rate (some statistics show that as much of 60% of the populace are HIV positive).

The Church isn't guilty on its own by dissuading the use of condoms - there is a whole lot of cultural stigma attached to the use of condoms too but it sickens me that an organisation that spearheads other great humanitarian efforts can be so blind about this issue.

Earth to Church: People have it off.

Your comment is uninformed and silly. This post links to an article with information from the UN. This survey has well researched numbers on the number of people who have AIDS in Africa. This number is 25 million. 25 million is not 60% of the population.

Using one document as a stick to beat the uninformed seems somewhat silly to me. The variation of the infection rate is large. Look for yourself in the document. According to USAID in some regions it amounts to 50%. I think this is the point the OP wanted to make. USAID do not agree fully with UNAIDS figures, especially in the north. (see f.i. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04... for some critique on statistical methods. Beware, it's from 2006).

Then again, the knowledge that there are people out there still dying on a large scale from this disease makes me feel informed ... but very silly when it comes to fights about the figures.

One document? It's from the U.N. There is no better document than this, and nobody will take more care of their statistics than this. That document can be trusted.

It's not a debate, there are 25 million people with Aids in Africa, not 400 million. The original comment was really the epitome of being uninformed.

I'll apologise here - I misread the source I was using. The figure of 60% is not the amount of people in Africa with HIV. According to the source ,wikipedia (reputable, I know), "Africa is estimated to have more than 60% of the AIDS-infected population".

Thanks for pulling me up but regardless: its still sickens me that 25 million people have HIV.

Yes, but I'd like to point out something you did that is worse than misquoting a statistic: You painted AIDS as an African disease. Rather than speaking about AIDS as something that affects all of us in the world, you behave as if it is something that affects Africa only.

In effect, you contribute to a stereotype that the African is a disease carrier.

Yes, you did not mean it that way, but if you really want to contribute and help, you can start by pointing out that HIV affects everyone in the world, and it's not something African and it's not something that you should associate with Africa only.

In doing so, you are hurting Africa (in showing it to be a diseased continent) and you are hurting the fight against Aids (by making people think it is something far away and foreign).

My plea to everyone is this - when you talk about AIDS, talk about it as something that affects us and people around us, and not as something that belongs in some jungle. That's the tiny thing you can do to help.

Whoa, backup here buddy. I'm homosexual and I'm all too familiar with the HIV issue. I have friends who have HIV and we do not consider it to be some "jungle disease". And by the same token its not a homosexual one either.

So thanks for clearing that up for me.

I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the people who read what you write.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com