Tackling AIDS in Africa

sonicthebadger*

Not sure if this belongs in A&A but given the discussion in the Scandals thread I'm very interested to know. Irelandese has said that the current thinking on the matter is ideological and unhelpful (even ignoring that the Pope is against condoms) the ABC (Abstain; Be faithful; Correct Condom use) is broken and needs fixing. I keep asking what better approach there is but have been politely deflected. This thread is being started because I am interested to know is there a better approach or approaches?

Irlandese

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

Not sure if this belongs in A&A but given the discussion in the Scandals thread I'm very interested to know. Irelandese has said that the current thinking on the matter is ideological and unhelpful (even ignoring that the Pope is against condoms) the ABC (Abstain; Be faithful; Correct Condom use) is broken and needs fixing. I keep asking what better approach there is but have been politely deflected. This thread is being started because I am interested to know is there a better approach or approaches?

You need to be a lot more specific friend.
Are you interested as a teacher, a preacher, a public health doctor, a community health worker, a traditional healer, a government policy maker in health or education or labour market studies, population planning or economics?
Then, are you interested in monitoring modalities? In treatment regimes? in general epidemiology? In preventative programmes in community-homes-workplaces- high risk sectors''
This is a very wide field and I have missed out dozens of other relevant sectors or facets and my apologies to the experts involved.
So, friend, be specific please

Irlandese

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

Not sure if this belongs in A&A but given the discussion in the Scandals thread I'm very interested to know. Irelandese has said that the current thinking on the matter is ideological and unhelpful (even ignoring that the Pope is against condoms) the ABC (Abstain; Be faithful; Correct Condom use) is broken and needs fixing. I keep asking what better approach there is but have been politely deflected. This thread is being started because I am interested to know is there a better approach or approaches?

So, to start, why exactly are you "very interested to know"?
What use will you make of the information, once you have tailored your research questions along the lines indicated as the bare minimums, in my last post.
Specificity is the key to collecting data, especially in such a broad and sometimes contentious set of diverse but linked fields.

sonicthebadger*

Irlandese wrote: »

You need to be a lot more specific friend.
Are you interested as a teacher, a preacher, a public health doctor, a community health worker, a traditional healer, a government policy maker in health or education or labour market studies, population planning or economics?
Then, are you interested in monitoring modalities? In treatment regimes? in general epidemiology? In preventative programmes in community-homes-workplaces- high risk sectors''
This is a very wide field and I have missed out dozens of other relevant sectors or facets and my apologies to the experts involved.
So, friend, be specific please

Ha ha! Wow! Holy crap, just by asking me questions you help me open up the vastness of my ignorance on the subject. I guess I'm interested as a teacher, but I'm afraid I have difficulty being specific as I don't know enough about this to ask specific questions. Let's take the point of view of a government or NGO policy maker on the issue, top level management. I can say I want to reduce the number of infections and slow the spread of HIV (to begin with... the ideal would be to eliminate HIV). As my advisor what would be the first areas to focus on and how? With limited budget and people to work on it what can I promote that will hit HIV hardest?

sonicthebadger*

Irlandese wrote: »

So, to start, why exactly are you "very interested to know"?
What use will you make of the information, once you have tailored your research questions along the lines indicated as the bare minimums, in my last post.
Specificity is the key to collecting data, especially in such a broad and sometimes contentious set of diverse but linked fields.

I am very interested to know simply because it is something knowable. Same reason I studied Quantum Physics and the development of Honda motorcycle engines, same reason I read books about trees and the politics of Europe between the wars. As for the use I will make of the information, I don't know if I will make use of it outside of trying to be less ignorant of the world in which I live.

ShooterSF

With an uneducated guess I'd instinctly lean towards pro-sex education from a young enough age focusing on how natural it is to want to and to have sex and how people should enjoy it safely.

(as i said thats just my gut feeling with no evidence)

Irlandese

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

Ha ha! Wow! Holy crap, just by asking me questions you help me open up the vastness of my ignorance on the subject. I guess I'm interested as a teacher, but I'm afraid I have difficulty being specific as I don't know enough about this to ask specific questions. Let's take the point of view of a government or NGO policy maker on the issue, top level management. I can say I want to reduce the number of infections and slow the spread of HIV (to begin with... the ideal would be to eliminate HIV). As my advisor what would be the first areas to focus on and how? With limited budget and people to work on it what can I promote that will hit HIV hardest?

Governments and NGO's work in very different ways. NGO's too often are donation hounds and cherry-pick activities designed to generate PR for grants and donations. Too often they are poor at or hostile to co-ordinating their relatively superior resources with shoe-string budgetted government services. Sad but true.
So, you are a government health services minister, eh?
You do not have the resources or the people or the time for large scale prevalence or incidence epidemiological studies, particularly as the tests for the virus are costing twenty to fifty times your per capita health budget, for each one. You tend to accept the WHP statistics that inform you that you probably have a prevalence rate of HIV infection of anything between thirty to forty% of your sexually active population. (You are certainly worried by the fact that the UNDP trainers for government pro-poor planning initiatives have informed government that they are planning their intakes and very expensive training cycles to train higher civil servants on their now tried and tested baisis that we will lose 10% of trained staff per annum to HIV, every year, from now on, without exception, apart from a possible upward adjustment)
You lack adequate hospitals, except one fairly ok flagship service in the capital ( close to the Presidential palace for some reason ). You do have some basic local medical infrastructures, with some pretty stretched local hospitals in major centres, who have serious problems with everything, from keeping enough doctors, getting adequate basic supplies of not just drugs and medicines but basic equipment like functioning autoclaves, cleaning materials, clean needles ( if only ! ). Even the food and water is suspect but thankfully relatives help out and the WFP food for mothers programme is being abused just a bit, to trade food for overtime for doctors and nurses. It's haphazard, but it works, a bit......
There are some sporadic but really modern and well-resourced clinics and health centres run by baptist missionaries who do a great job with the spectacular stuff that draws the media and keeps the cash rolling in. They take some of our serious elective surgery work-load, but, it is a tiny drop in the ocean. They also steal our best doctors who then get placements for specialist training abroad, but most of them perhaps understandably never return, so we end up worse off.
We do, however, have a wonderful network of local health workers, semi-trained local nurses, who co-operate with local community groups, tribal elders and most importantly, tribal faith healers, to promote health education lessons on everything from food hygiene, infant care, immunisation, alcohol abuse and sexual health, including condom use. It is an up-hill struggle though, as condoms are expensive and UNAIDS have had their budgets slashed after the USA blocked any cash for programmes that promote condom use. Too many of your young women and too many of the widows below forty, with no other income, in the many villages near the roads network, work as full-time or occasional prostitutes, with travelling truck drivers, who pay almost nothing for sex but will pay a little more for sex without condoms. If they are drunk or violent, they simply refuse to use condoms and pay the minimum anyway. HIV is seen as just one of the dozens of sexually transmitted diseases they freely exchange up and down the transport networks and bring back to the villages on their return.............

It is a big story, friend. Now you go back to your village health workers and you try to give them the resources and effective education methods to get the message across, where life is cheap and very hard, where fancy concepts are certainly alien and where condoms are too expensive to buy and where they are blocked from the truth re their benefits by ideologically driven and very well resourced messages from those baptists and even the catholic missionaries, some of whom do not even use condoms themselves, with their "regular" wives in the villages they visit.
The ordinary people are confused by all these mixed messages and even resent the tone and manner of much of what is preached to them, so they just ignore it and infection levels and transmission continues as before or faster.

A. Put 500 doctors with an average 20 years experience each treating Aids victims in expensive western hospitals and even add 40 cardinals with 40 years each teaching morality a-la-church with them, into a luxury conference hotel with all mod cons and give them 4 days to work out a super-duper anti-aids strategy for your government.
or
B. Put one hundred trained native market researchers on the streets of your towns and villages to ask ordinary people why they do not use condoms and what it would take for them to actually change their risky sexual lifestyles and what would help them do so?

Guess which group costs much less?
Guess which group is most likely to come up with workable, practical and acceptable approaches that make some sense in the context of and respect local culture and traditions?
But, unfortunately, Guess which one will attract most donor funding, making it possible !!

Hope this whetted your appetite.
The rest of your journey is up to you, my friend.
I am a bit too old and long in the tooth and too many years away from the front line now to re-start again on the hard road to try to convice the zealots to stop preaching ideology and start thinking about respecting and saving lives on earth, not in some imaginary vallhallah or heaven

Irlandese

ShooterSF wrote: »

With an uneducated guess I'd instinctly lean towards pro-sex education from a young enough age focusing on how natural it is to want to and to have sex and how people should enjoy it safely.

(as i said thats just my gut feeling with no evidence)

Bingo.

ISAW

ShooterSF wrote: »

With an uneducated guess I'd instinctly lean towards pro-sex education from a young enough age focusing on how natural it is to want to and to have sex and how people should enjoy it safely.

(as i said thats just my gut feeling with no evidence)

Here here!

Here is an earlier discussion on moral relativism and other philosophical implications with respect to HIV condoms etc.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054987514&page=8&

With a link to evidence e.g. reports on caused of AIDS e.g. the main cause being intergenerational sex of older men preying on young girls.

the philosophical discussion with respect to rationality of the Popes position etc. are expanded on here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055825682&page=22

beginning message 323

Irlandese

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

I am very interested to know simply because it is something knowable. Same reason I studied Quantum Physics and the development of Honda motorcycle engines, same reason I read books about trees and the politics of Europe between the wars. As for the use I will make of the information, I don't know if I will make use of it outside of trying to be less ignorant of the world in which I live.

Ok, wins me over.
Lets hope the zealots and other assorted crazies from the ideologically murky waters of some other threads don't follow you here !
If they do, I suggest you ignore them and stick with your interesting thread idea.

ISAW

Irlandese wrote: »

Too many of your young women and too many of the widows below forty, with no other income, in the many villages near the roads network, work as full-time or occasional prostitutes, with travelling truck drivers, who pay almost nothing for sex but will pay a little more for sex without condoms. If they are drunk or violent, they simply refuse to use condoms and pay the minimum anyway. HIV is seen as just one of the dozens of sexually transmitted diseases they freely exchange up and down the transport networks and bring back to the villages on their return.............

In Africa this is the main demographic factor you have identified here.

i have dealt with the philosophical position and referenced it above. The point is that the older men exploiting young women are like armalites. giving them condoms is like giving them free handguns or silencers. The reasoning is that the liklihood may be if they use handguns instead of automatic weapons then the numbers killed by them will be less. this in itself may not be true. In Rwanda most people were not shot but butchered with Machetes for example. but assume it is true. Some peoplee.g. christians still can validly say they disprove of ANY use of any weapon because ANY violence is wrong. They can similarly say ANY sex outside of a loving relationship is wrong and if that type of sex was adhered to HIV would not spread and asking people to use condoms is just to them like asking people to use handguns. the act is still wrong in their view., a VALID view.

they are blocked from the truth re their benefits by ideologically driven and very well resourced messages from those baptists and even the catholic missionaries, some of whom do not even use condoms themselves, with their "regular" wives in the villages they visit.

If they are having sex and meant to be celebate, that also is wrong. conflating another wrong doesn't change the point! I a policeman robs a bank he is still breaking the law he swore to uphold. You cant say the law is wrong because the police ignore it.

The ordinary people are confused by all these mixed messages and even resent the tone and manner of much of what is preached to them, so they just ignore it and infection levels and transmission continues as before or faster.

The message was clearly made by you. Intergenerational sex. Older men younger women.
Rmoving the gun may not stop the killing. removing the intent will.

B. Put one hundred trained native market researchers on the streets of your towns and villages to ask ordinary people why they do not use condoms and what it would take for them to actually change their risky sexual lifestyles and what would help them do so?

You already pointed out that even if girls got free condoms and gave them to exploitative men the men would not use them!

I am a bit too old and long in the tooth and too many years away from the front line now to re-start again on the hard road to try to convice the zealots to stop preaching ideology and start thinking about respecting and saving lives on earth, not in some imaginary vallhallah or heaven

Ideology such as free condoms to everyone will prevent AIDS. it won't!

Irlandese

ISAW, I am not trying to be funny, but, honestly [...]

.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

robindch

Irlandese wrote: »

ISAW, I am not trying to be funny, but, honestly [...]

Irlandese carded for a post unbecoming.

Dades

ISAW wrote: »

i have dealt with the philosophical position and referenced it above. The point is that the older men exploiting young women are like armalites. giving them condoms is like giving them free handguns or silencers. The reasoning is that the liklihood may be if they use handguns instead of automatic weapons then the numbers killed by them will be less. this in itself may not be true.

To my mind giving them condoms is more akin to giving them blanks to use in their guns. They're going to use the guns anyway, but they won't kill anyone when they do.

It is a "valid view" that if people didn't have sex outside of a 'loving relationship', that AIDS would be controllable - but it's a deluded view that you can actually change the sexual habits of a continent sufficiently to allow this to work.

JimiTime

Dades wrote: »

To my mind giving them condoms is more akin to giving them blanks to use in their guns. They're going to use the guns anyway, but they won't kill anyone when they do.

A big issue though is that you leave them with the live rounds, which they much prefer using.

It is a "valid view" that if people didn't have sex outside of a 'loving relationship', that AIDS would be controllable - but it's a deluded view that you can actually change the sexual habits of a continent sufficiently to allow this to work.

Which is why I think 'One or the other' thinking is not the way forward. A multifaceted approach would probably be wisest.

I think both the bitter approach from the likes of Irlandese, or the dogmatic 'condoms are bad, so lets rule them out of a solution' approach from the Pope, do not help.

Irlandese

Dades wrote: »

To my mind giving them condoms is more akin to giving them blanks to use in their guns. They're going to use the guns anyway, but they won't kill anyone when they do.

It is a "valid view" that if people didn't have sex outside of a 'loving relationship', that AIDS would be controllable - but it's a deluded view that you can actually change the sexual habits of a continent sufficiently to allow this to work.

Exactly.
Health promotion re Aids in Africa today has to concentrate on what are technically described as "harm reduction" strategies, focussed on reducing the risks per transmission possibility. Partner number reduction strategies are also obviously important, where feasible, but in the real world, we should focus on where people are now, not where we would like them to be, based on ideological or religious considerations, even when we try to hide them behind spurious arguaments not supported by the facts.
We need to start respecting, supporting, advising and making healthier choices easier choices.

JimiTime

Irlandese wrote: »

Exactly.
Health promotion re Aids in Africa today has to concentrate on what are technically described as "harm reduction" strategies, focussed on reducing the risks per transmission possibility. Partner number reduction strategies are also obviously important, where feasible, but in the real world, we should focus on where people are now, not where we would like them to be, based on ideological or religious considerations, even when we try to hide them behind spurious arguaments not supported by the facts, when we start respecting, supporting, advising and making healthier choices easier choices.

IMO, this approach is short-sighted and lacks wisdom. Why not do both? Deal with it in both a short term AND long term solution? Above is akin to giving a man a fish, when teaching a man to fish will be a better solution. However, you can give them fish while they are learning.

Irlandese

JimiTime wrote: »

IMO, this approach is short-sighted and lacks wisdom. Why not do both? Deal with it in both a short term AND long term solution? Above is akin to giving a man a fish, when teaching a man to fish will be a better solution. However, you can give them fish while they are learning.

OMG,IHFR??????


Hi Robin, I am afraid what I might say next,
so I am going out to a meeting, to keep my hands occupied !

JimiTime

Irlandese wrote: »

OMG,IHFR??????
I like fish, in fact I think I will cook some for lunch today.

Lemon is good on fish too, though maybe you should hold off on citrus fruits.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

However, you can give them fish while they are learning.

As long as they're not shrimps, of course

PDN

It is a pity that the problem is often approached as an either/or situation as regards Behaviour vs Condoms. This often seems to reflect people's ideological bias rather than anything else.

I am no medical professional, but I am a frequent visitor to Africa, and it seems to me that a combined approach works better. Risky sexual behaviour can never be prevented entirely, but it can reduced through education. Condom use should be encouraged where there is any doubt that either partner in a relationship has, or is engaged, in any other sexual encounters.

In a church in Kenya recently I was told that couples planning to get married are required to be tested for HIV and must show their certification to clergy before they can officiate at the wedding (it wasn't clear whether this was a legal requirement or something the churches had decided on). Often you get situations where one of the partners converted to Christianity in their late teens or early twenties, have practiced abstinence since their conversion, yet then discover days before their intended wedding that they are HIV+ due to sexual encounters pre-conversion.

Ironically I think the pope is correct in one thing (even a stopped clock is right twice a day) in that he says condom distribution won't fix the AIDS crisis. I don't think anything other than systemic political and economic change will fix or stop the AIDS crisis - but a multi-faceted approach should reduce and control it more. If you spend just 30 minutes walking through a Nairobi slum then you quickly understand that poverty (aided and abetted by political corruption which prevents poverty being tackled) is the biggest factor in all of this. When life is so squalid and cheap, then there will always be people who will engage in any risky behaviour to survive through the day.

Irlandese

JimiTime wrote: »

A big issue though is that you leave them with the live rounds, which they much prefer using.


Which is why I think 'One or the other' thinking is not the way forward. A multifaceted approach would probably be wisest.

I think both the bitter approach from the likes of Irlandese, or the dogmatic 'condoms are bad, so lets rule them out of a solution' approach from the Pope, do not help.

ha ha ha !
Now I remember you.
You are the one who writes posts like this direct quote from your back catalogue;

" And who says you can't polish a turd. He wraps each passing oral bowel movement with a sweet wrapping of snappy phrases and nice language. Every so often though, the steam appears, followed by the stench. A turd dressed as a rose will be revealed when one moves in to have a smell."

_Ahem, did I just read you calling my posts above "bitter" ?
Enough said, me old flower !_________________

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

As long as they're not shrimps, of course

On the contrary

JimiTime

Irlandese wrote: »

ha ha ha !
Now I remember you.
You are the one who writes posts like this direct quote from your back catalogue;

" And who says you can't polish a turd. He wraps each passing oral bowel movement with a sweet wrapping of snappy phrases and nice language. Every so often though, the steam appears, followed by the stench. A turd dressed as a rose will be revealed when one moves in to have a smell."

_Ahem, did I just read you calling my posts above "bitter" ?
Enough said, me old flower !_________________

If you do not want to engage with me, that is fine. I would politely ask that you simply ignore my posts. What you are attempting above is petty and childish. Not only does the above make no sense to what you are trying to insinuate (Taking a quote from a random thread about something completely unrelated to the topic here ), but it only serves to stifle discussion. Before the above it was all 'OMG', 'I'm afraid of what I'll say next' etc in relation to anything that challenged your own view. If you don't want to hear alternative views, just ignore them. That way you will be considerate towards those who wish to discuss and engage the various view points.

old_aussie

Don't worry about educating them or giving them free condoms.

Just let the Darwin effect do it's work.

Rev Hellfire

old_aussie wrote: »

Don't worry about educating them or giving them free condoms.

Just let the Darwin effect do it's work.

I'm inclined to agree with you.

Bottle_of_Smoke

old_aussie wrote: »

Don't worry about educating them or giving them free condoms.

Just let the Darwin effect do it's work.

The problem with that is they're bringing their troubles over here

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

JimiTime wrote: »

However, you can give them fish while they are learning.

As long as they're not shrimps, of course

On the contrary

Unfotunately not, since the sheet that Peter saw lowered from the sky in a vision, was filled with animals and birds, but not any seafood. While I'm quoting the words of Jesus.

I believe a quote trumps a vision, and Jesus trumps Peter?

Dades

Irlandese wrote: »

ha ha ha !
Now I remember you...

Stick with the thread instead of making every discussion a personal challenge.

MikeC101

robindch wrote: »

I believe a quote trumps a vision, and Jesus trumps Peter?

What does Jesus and a pair of apostles get me?

Because I want in on this pot.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Unfotunately not, since the sheet that Peter saw lowered from the sky in a vision, was filled with animals and birds, but not any seafood. While I'm quoting the words of Jesus.

I believe a quote trumps a vision, and Jesus trumps Peter?

You're quoting Jesus? That's strange, I must have missed the bit where Jesus wrote Leviticus.

However, I'll see you your quote and raise you my Jesus

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I'll see you your quote and raise you my Jesus

Good find. I now understand that Jesus both fulfilled the law and repudiated it. Very even-handed! What about the wearing of cloths of different types -- is that still verboten?

PDN wrote: »

I must have missed the bit where Jesus wrote Leviticus.

Since Jesus is god, and god inspired (if not wrote) Leviticus, I think the link is clear enough.

That's one of the nice things about A+A -- folks here are always ready to help christians learn about their religion

robindch

MikeC101 wrote: »

What does Jesus and a pair of apostles get me?

I've no idea, but a knave and two jokers certainly isn't a bad hand.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

That's one of the nice things about A+A -- folks here are always ready to help christians learn about their religion

And remarkably similar to how, in the Creationism thread, JC helps you learn about science. Ah well, I guess one good turn deserves another &c.

Irlandese

Dades wrote: »

Stick with the thread instead of making every discussion a personal challenge.

Hi, I was away for a bit.
The OP started the thread to explore HIV prevention strategies in Africa, after posing me some specific questions in the last thread. I have been trying to keep on topic, despite the expected attempts to dog the science with the christo-babble that the other threads suffered.
Re the repartee, tbh, I was responding to his silly barb by simply reflecting back the guy's tendency to be more than a little loutish in his postings to date. If he has a thin skin, he should play safer. I only tend to counter-punch and then, very seldom, preferring logic to caustic. But some christo's put in for it rather a lot.
So, on this occasion, no apologies in order.
Maybe the OP has all he needs? Otherwise, we do seem to be straying from his original thread topic?

CU tmrow

JimiTime

Irlandese wrote: »

Hi, I was away for a bit.
The OP started the thread to explore HIV prevention strategies in Africa, after posing me some specific questions in the last thread. I have been trying to keep on topic, despite the expected attempts to dog the science with the christo-babble that the other threads suffered.

the topic is 'AIDS in africa' and those who you spit your bile at stayed on topic, they simply hold a different view to you.

I was responding to his silly barb by simply reflecting back the guy's tendency to be more than a little loutish in his postings to date.

Your poor attempt to do so aside, you also said ISAW 'Needed to get help' and shouted 'Ignore, ignore, ignore' at Plowman. Its not some isolated incident, its simply your intolerance of others, specifically 'christo's' as you so derogatarily put it. You have single handedly in your venemous personal outbursts led this thread off topic. NOBODY else, just you.

If he has a thin skin, he should play safer.

I couldn't give a monkey's what you call me, but I 'politely' requested that for the consideration of others, you stopped your outbursts. If you couldn't be bothered by 'Christo's' opinions, then ignore them, because they are free to post here in tune with the charter.

So, on this occasion, no apologies in order.

A simple change in your approach would suffice. You obviously have a thing about 'christo's', so if anything they say gets your back up, then put us all on ignore. Otherwise you'll keep dragging threads off topic. We have been welcome to comment in this forum, and are breaking no rules by doing so.

Maybe the OP has all he needs? Otherwise, we do seem to be straying from his original thread topic?

If you were truly concerned for staying on topic, you'd stop your little tirades and show some maturity. If it means ignoring the 'christo's' because they irritate you so much then let that be the method you employ.

Dades

Irlandese, we all getting a bit tired of your approach to these threads. People who have been here a lot longer than you, including Jimitime, don't feel the necessity to engage in a personal duel of wits any time a post is made by a someone (i.e. a Christian).

Attack the post, not the poster, or I will ban you. If you have an issue with this take it to PM - we're done talking about it here.

ISAW

Dades wrote: »

To my mind giving them condoms is more akin to giving them blanks to use in their guns. They're going to use the guns anyway, but they won't kill anyone when they do.

not true since as already admitted condoms are not 100 per cent effective in preventing HIV spreading.

It is a "valid view" that if people didn't have sex outside of a 'loving relationship', that AIDS would be controllable - but it's a deluded view that you can actually change the sexual habits of a continent sufficiently to allow this to work.

Using the same reasoning it is a "deluded view" that people will stop killing other people and you can't change the violent intent of some people. Based on that are you going to argue we should not have laws against murder or control firearms? If we promost the control of violent behaviour then why shouldn't we promote the control of sexual behaviour? Surely you can't say using violence or hurting other people is "natural" and should be left alone?

Some people tend to be "deluded" by the way and they don't have to be religious believers.
I'm sure the anti-slavery lobby and the "votes from women" lobby were also considered "deluded" as were the "heliocentric" bunch.

ISAW

Irlandese wrote: »

Exactly.
Health promotion re Aids in Africa today has to concentrate on what are technically described as "harm reduction" strategies, focussed on reducing the risks per transmission possibility. Partner number reduction strategies are also obviously important, where feasible, but in the real world, we should focus on where people are now, not where we would like them to be, based on ideological or religious considerations, even when we try to hide them behind spurious arguaments not supported by the facts.
We need to start respecting, supporting, advising and making healthier choices easier choices.

My arguments were supported by officially published facts and are not spurious. Inter generational sex is the main causal factor. Older men/young girls.

One can technically call a "free handguns" strategy a "harm reduction strategy". In essence all it does is give more money to the weapons companies. Health promotion doesn't have to concentrate on anything! People decide on what it has to concentrate!

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

It is a pity that the problem is often approached as an either/or situation as regards Behaviour vs Condoms. This often seems to reflect people's ideological bias rather than anything else.

I am no medical professional, but I am a frequent visitor to Africa, and it seems to me that a combined approach works better.

I didn't say that one or the other way was better. I just pointed out that there is an element that ridicule the Pope or other people for saying "condoms are not the solution to AIDS" when such a position is a valid position supported by FACTS.

Risky sexual behaviour can never be prevented entirely,

That isn't the point i made! the point is that of such behaviour is wrong you can't call the Pope or someone else a fool for saying so.

sonicthebadger*

@Irlandese

Thanks for the long and detailed response. It's interesting that the main point you made in it was that the best way to change behaviour on the ground was to get in there and get your notepads dirty, figure out what's driving people and then give them an alternate direction which hopefully fights the disease. To drive the car you have to understand the controls and the vast majority of tribes and villages aren't going to be exciting and fancy one size fits all solutions.

It's a pity the rest of the thread degenerated into Bronze Age ideas of "right" and "wrong". It is "right" to reduce the number of HIV infections, it is "wrong" to decide from some gilded palace how every human in the world should behave. (In my humble opinion )

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

PDN

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Don't answer! It's a trap. The next thing they'll be moaning about you taking the thread off topic.

...................

Drat! Too late!

Dades

ISAW wrote: »

not true since as already admitted condoms are not 100 per cent effective in preventing HIV spreading.

Hey, I was using someone else's analogy. Not quite 100% is far better than hope and a prayer.

ISAW wrote: »

Using the same reasoning it is a "deluded view" that people will stop killing other people and you can't change the violent intent of some people. Based on that are you going to argue we should not have laws against murder or control firearms? If we promost the control of violent behaviour then why shouldn't we promote the control of sexual behaviour? Surely you can't say using violence or hurting other people is "natural" and should be left alone?

You're debunking an argument that nobody made here. It's clearly stupid to allow violence or think you can solve it with blank ammunition. This is not the same as encouraging safe sex where it's more likely you can get someone to wear a condom than not have sex in the first place.

ISAW wrote: »

Some people tend to be "deluded" by the way and they don't have to be religious believers.

I don't think it really matters to people here whether the no-contraception policy is being advocated by some old man in bejeweled hat in Rome, or a movie star. It is naive or deluded regardless of whether it is religion based.

ISAW wrote: »

I'm sure the anti-slavery lobby and the "votes from women" lobby were also considered "deluded" as were the "heliocentric" bunch.

Interestingly enough the foremost heliocentric was considered deluded by Pope Urban VIII.

JimiTime

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

It's a pity the rest of the thread degenerated into Bronze Age ideas of "right" and "wrong". It is "right" to reduce the number of HIV infections, it is "wrong" to decide from some gilded palace how every human in the world should behave. (In my humble opinion )

Sorry, but I just couldn't let this go. Could you point out where the thread 'degenerated into bronze age ideas of right and wrong'? Or is this just more anti-christian, unsubstantiated bluster?

sonicthebadger*

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Indeed, lots of full notepads are useless at the back of a cupboard. But researching how the problem is reacting to intervention is a good idea don't you think? Also, neither Irladese or I said "just giving out contraceptives" was a solution in and of itself.

I understand that some of Irlandese's posts may be read as quite agressive if you wish to read them that way.

I did not say "right" and "wrong" were Bronze Age ideas. Please don't put words in my mouth. I think I was quite clear what I meant in the last sentence of my post.

sonicthebadger*

JimiTime wrote: »

Sorry, but I just couldn't let this go. Could you point out where the thread 'degenerated into bronze age ideas of right and wrong'? Or is this just more anti-christian, unsubstantiated bluster?

Can do. Condoms bad, no sex good.

You can play about with that statement all you like and yes there is a certain amount of Straw Man in it but not near as much as I'd like there to be.

JimiTime

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

Can do. Condoms bad, no sex good.

You can play about with that statement all you like and yes there is a certain amount of Straw Man in it but not near as much as I'd like there to be.

I take it that you can't point out where the thread 'degenerated into bronze age idea's of right and wrong' then?

In fact I don't think you could even point out a place where someone says 'condoms are bad'.

So once again, if you could back-up your claims it would be good.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Sam Vimes

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No he didn't say that right and wrong are bronze age ideas, he referred to bronze ages of right and wrong, meaning that we now have different ideas of right and wrong (e.g. no slaves anymore). Not saying I agree or disagree because I haven't read the rest of his post to the thread, just correcting a misunderstanding