AIDS "epidemic"

Gone West · 03-07-2008 10:03AM

tallaght01 wrote: »

Substitute "fact" with gross generalisation.

Lack of condoms is also very much to do with gender inequality.

Apologies, I should have included "vast vast majority, or else was born with it because their parents didn't" after fact.

I wasn't aware that AH was so pedantic nowadays!

Anyways o/ toodles

Although yeah gender inequality is a good reason too

Earthhorse · 03-07-2008 11:01AM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Possibly because preventative measures were taken.

Yes. No shit. I believe that's the point he's making.

tallaght01 wrote: »

If anyone could tell me what point he's actually making, I'd be very grateful

I doubt that even the author could.

AckwelFoley · 03-07-2008 12:51PM

gixerfixer wrote: »

Like the common cold

Aids is aids.

The common cold or flue are actually different strains.

Unless one gets aids or.. SUPER AIDS.

studiorat · 03-07-2008 01:01PM

Sure while we're at it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPV_AIDS_hypothesis

Conspiracy theory anyone?

seamus · 03-07-2008 01:04PM

snyper wrote: »

Aids is aids.

The common cold or flue are actually different strains.

Unless one gets aids or.. SUPER AIDS.

Actually, AIDS isn't a virus at all, AIDS is the symptom of HIV.

</pedantic>

AARRRGH · 03-07-2008 01:48PM

Throughout history, powerful groups (e.g. the Catholic Church) have tried to associate sex with guilt. As people became more liberated, they needed a new tactic, so they changed it to if you have sex you'll die.

AIDS is a very complicated subject. There is a combination of lies, politics (over estimating AIDS victims to get more funding), inaccuracy and arrogance.

Why would health workers admit AIDS isn't really a threat when all that'll do is reduce the amount of funding they get?

Btw, most people don't use condoms in Europe. Yes, I know a lot of boards.ie users probably do, but I'm sorry, the average person is not a computer literate nerd. If we're not using condoms, why can't AIDS cross the Mediterreanean? It makes no sense.

Never forget AIDS is a massive industry.

tallaght01 · 03-07-2008 01:59PM

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

As for the utter nonsense of circumcision being any protection againt aids, that primitive barbaric tradition has no bearing on infection rates.

Circumcision reduces infection rates by between 50-60% according to the big trials conducted in this area. Though we have done this topic to death in the Ladies Lounge (??!!??) before

dublindude wrote: »

There is a combination of lies, politics (over estimating AIDS victims to get more funding), inaccuracy and arrogance.

.

Sadly, one of the biggest problems with HIV rates has been UNDER-reporting by governments.

Earthhorse · 03-07-2008 02:10PM

studiorat wrote: »

Sure while we're at it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPV_AIDS_hypothesis

Conspiracy theory anyone?

Next you'll be getting us all to buy Foo Fighters CDs.

dublindude wrote: »

If we're not using condoms, why can't AIDS cross the Mediterreanean?

It can?

AARRRGH · 03-07-2008 02:13PM

It annoys me that it takes a newspaper to write about this topic before people take it seriously. There have been many thousands of people pointing out this **** for years and they were dismissed as crazy.

I guess it goes to show how much power the media have.

AARRRGH · 03-07-2008 02:14PM

Earthhorse wrote: »

It can?

Not really. Why isn't there an epidemic in Europe?

Earthhorse · 03-07-2008 02:15PM

How is the epidemic in Africa spreading then?

AARRRGH · 03-07-2008 02:19PM

Earthhorse wrote: »

How is the epidemic in Africa spreading then?

That's my point.

Why don't we have one in Europe?

My answer is there is a lot more to AIDS than condomless sex.

Earthhorse · 03-07-2008 02:23PM

dublindude wrote: »

That's my point.

Why don't we have one in Europe?

My answer is there is a lot more to AIDS than condomless sex.

Elaborate.

AARRRGH · 03-07-2008 02:31PM

Earthhorse wrote: »

Elaborate.

There is a huge AIDS problem in Africa. It is assumed this is because they are promiscious and don't use condoms.

In Europe we're just as promiscious, and most people do not use condoms with every new partner (people who force their partner to get a HIV test before having condomless sex would very much be in the minority.)

So if the majority are not practicing strict safe sex, why are there very few heterosexual infections in Europe?

It makes absolutely no sense. Therefore I believe there is a lot more to this AIDS thing than condoms.

meditraitor · 03-07-2008 02:31PM

Here is a different slant on the reduction in HIV deaths in the west
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080701165100.htm

Since Introduction Of Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy, HIV Death Rate Has Decreased
ScienceDaily (July 3, 2008) — In industrialized countries, persons infected sexually with HIV now appear to experience mortality rates similar to those of the general population in the first 5 years following infection, though a higher risk of death remains as the duration of HIV infection lengthens, according to a new study.

A number of studies have reported the dramatic decreases in mortality among individuals infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) since the widespread introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in industrialized countries. "It is important to provide up-to-date and robust estimates of expected mortality as anti-HIV drugs and strategies continue to improve. Such estimates help policy makers and those planning health care to monitor the effectiveness of treatments at a population level and provide an indicator of the ongoing and likely future impact of HIV disease on health care needs," the authors write.

Krishnan Bhaskaran, M.Sc., of the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, London, and colleagues evaluated changes in the excess mortality of HIV-infected individuals compared with expected mortality in the general uninfected population, adjusting for duration of HIV infection. Mortality following HIV seroconversion (development of antibodies in blood serum as a result of infection) in a large multinational collaboration of HIV seroconverter cohorts (CASCADE) was compared with expected mortality, calculated by applying general population death rates matched on demographic factors. A model was created, adjusted for duration of infection, to assess changes over calendar time in the excess mortality among HIV-infected individuals. Data pooled in September 2007 were analyzed in March 2008, covering years at risk 1981-2006.

Of 16,534 individuals with median (midpoint) duration of follow-up of 6.3 years, a total of 2,571 individuals had died as of December 2006, compared with an estimated 235 deaths that would have been expected in a matched general population cohort. The excess mortality rate per 1,000 person-years (the number of individuals in the study times the number of years of follow-up per person) was 40.8 pre-1996, decreasing in each subsequent calendar period to 6.1 in 2004-2006.

By 2004-2006, there was no evidence of any excess mortality to 5 years from seroconversion among those infected sexually. However, in the longer term, some excess mortality was still evident, with the cumulative excess probability of death in the first 10 years from seroconversion estimated to be 4.8 percent in those 15 to 24 years old, and 4.3 percent in those 45 years or older at seroconversion.

"Considering the first years following the widespread introduction of HAART, we have estimated an 88 percent reduction in excess mortality in 2000-2001 compared with pre-1996, corresponding closely to the 87 percent reduction in the standardized mortality ratio in 1997-2001 compared with pre-1996, as reported by the Swiss HIV cohort. Our more recent data show that reductions have continued to 2004-2006, with excess mortality in this period 94 percent lower than pre-1996 levels.

Corresponding to these reductions, the uptake of HAART increased, and though this leveled off after 2001, there followed an increasing use of nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based HAART as the first-line treatment regimen and a substantial increase in the boosting of protease inhibitor-based regimens," the authors write.

Older age at seroconversion was associated with a higher risk of excess mortality (for age 45 years or older compared with age 15-24 years), as was a reported exposure category of injection drug use (compared with sex between males). Females appeared to be at lower risk than males.

"Our results show the progress in reducing mortality among HIV-infected individuals toward the levels experienced by the general uninfected population. However, there is continuing excess mortality, particularly evident in those infected for 10 years or more. Ongoing monitoring of excess mortality will be important as new treatment advances are implemented in an attempt to further reduce mortality rates among HIV-infected individuals," the researchers conclude.

tallaght01 · 03-07-2008 02:39PM

Earthhorse wrote: »

Elaborate.

There are several reasons for this, earthhorse. One big problem is lack of education: people don't know how AIDS is transmitted, or that there's no cure etc. They think there's all kinds of ways to prevent it. Much like the oul "if we do it standing up, she won't get pregnant" type myths that were doing the rounds when you were a teenager.

Plus with lower educational level comes poverty. Poverty might mean that you have to work in the sex industry, where you're at high risk. It means you're malnourished, which increases your risks. it means you live in crappy housing, and you're more liely to get TB, which makes you more likely to become ill if you get HIV. It also makes you more likely to be an intravenous drug user. but in Ireland/the UK etc we have clean needle programmes. in Africa, you keep your needle as long as you can, and you share it with your mates.

There's also a problem with gender inequality in many countries. In places where women aren't respected, it becomes acceptable to be polygymous. The women also aren't respected enough to be part of the problems about contraception. If the man doesn't want to wera a condom, he doesn't. end of story. This is a big problem in Africa

Conflict is also endemic in africa. I'm alsways rabbiting on about this, but you wouldn't believe how many females (of LITERALLY all ages) get raped during pregnancy. rape carries a much higher transmission rate for HIV than does consensual sex, due to the forces involved.

Because of the above factors, STDs other than HIV are much more common. If you have another STD, you're more likely to have sores on your genitalia, and are therefore more at risk of contracting HIV.

There's other reasons, but these are some of the main reasons why they have an epidemic, and we don't.

EDIT: meditraitor, you're absoloutely right that antiretrovirals have revolutionised HIV/AIDS care in developed countries. But even before we had them available, we never had the HIV problem that poorer countries have.

tallaght01 · 03-07-2008 02:43PM

dublindude wrote: »

In Europe we're just as promiscious, and most people do not use condoms with every new partner

is that true, btw? i don't know either way, but would be interested if you had stats for that statement.

Earthhorse · 03-07-2008 02:55PM

tallaght01 wrote: »

There are several reasons for this, earthhorse.

Thanks for that tallaght01, it was more dublindude I was looking to hear from.

I'm aware that AIDs isn't spread exclusively via unsafe sex but also through unclean needles etc. but it's precisely, or partly, why Europe doesn't have the AIDs epidemic Africa has. That and the other reasons you mentioned. Given that the poverty, gender inequality and other problems Africa faces, and which are fairly intractable in some areas, it makes sense to promote safe sex as part of the solution (yes, even if the gender inequality exists it does).

AARRRGH · 03-07-2008 02:57PM

tallaght01 wrote: »

is that true, btw? i don't know either way, but would be interested if you had stats for that statement.

It's all anecdotal I'm afraid, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know poor people aren't safe sex nazis.

Btw I don't know anyone (and I know a lot of people!) who force their partners to have HIV tests before a single instance of (planned or unplanned) unsafe sex.

tallaght01 · 03-07-2008 03:02PM

Earthhorse wrote: »

, it makes sense to promote safe sex as part of the solution (yes, even if the gender inequality exists it does).

Dead right it does. Absoloutely. But as part of a wider strategy for rate reduction.

AARRRGH · 03-07-2008 03:05PM

tallaght01 wrote: »

Dead right it does. Absoloutely. But as part of a wider strategy for rate reduction.

Yeah. I think focussing on "wear a condom" (which is a very difficult message to get across - wearing a condom goes against every sexual instinct) is a bit of a small minded strategy.

Hellm0 · 03-07-2008 03:22PM

tallaght01 wrote: »

There are several reasons for this, earthhorse. One big problem is lack of education: people don't know how AIDS is transmitted, or that there's no cure etc. They think there's all kinds of ways to prevent it. Much like the oul "if we do it standing up, she won't get pregnant" type myths that were doing the rounds when you were a teenager.

Plus with lower educational level comes poverty. Poverty might mean that you have to work in the sex industry, where you're at high risk. It means you're malnourished, which increases your risks. it means you live in crappy housing, and you're more liely to get TB, which makes you more likely to become ill if you get HIV. It also makes you more likely to be an intravenous drug user. but in Ireland/the UK etc we have clean needle programmes. in Africa, you keep your needle as long as you can, and you share it with your mates.

There's also a problem with gender inequality in many countries. In places where women aren't respected, it becomes acceptable to be polygymous. The women also aren't respected enough to be part of the problems about contraception. If the man doesn't want to wera a condom, he doesn't. end of story. This is a big problem in Africa

Conflict is also endemic in africa. I'm alsways rabbiting on about this, but you wouldn't believe how many females (of LITERALLY all ages) get raped during pregnancy. rape carries a much higher transmission rate for HIV than does consensual sex, due to the forces involved.

Because of the above factors, STDs other than HIV are much more common. If you have another STD, you're more likely to have sores on your genitalia, and are therefore more at risk of contracting HIV.

There's other reasons, but these are some of the main reasons why they have an epidemic, and we don't.

EDIT: meditraitor, you're absoloutely right that antiretrovirals have revolutionised HIV/AIDS care in developed countries. But even before we had them available, we never had the HIV problem that poorer countries have.

I believe the article was suggesting that AID's is not a significant problem in rich countries, which is all that matters really.

AARRRGH · 03-07-2008 03:23PM

Hellm0 wrote: »

I believe the article was suggesting that AID's is not a significant problem in rich countries, which is all that matters really.

This does suggest, somewhat, that AIDS is not solely due to unsafe sex. There must be other factors, such as already having a ****ed immune system, or possibly the figures in Africa being somewhat bogus.

Hellm0 · 03-07-2008 03:47PM

dublindude wrote: »

This does suggest, somewhat, that AIDS is not solely due to unsafe sex. There must be other factors, such as already having a ****ed immune system, or possibly the figures in Africa being somewhat bogus.

There are many factors involved in the contraction of HIV/AIDS, though ultimately the biggest factor is human volition. If people are aware of a contagion in their community they should have the sense do take the steps nessecary to avoid infection, whether they do or not is no one's responsibility other than their own.

That said I fully support AID's education and "awareness", so long as the threat is acuratly assessed by those doing the educating and not exploited to further dogmatic, political or religious agendas.

Wibbs · 03-07-2008 05:45PM

It's such a multifactorial problem that comparing european and african rates of transmission is so difficult. As tallaght01 points out poverty, status of women, lack of education, other STD rates, war and the concommitant rape problem, are so far removed from the average european life, it's no wonder the rates are so high there. You can add in the higher amount of sexual partners to it too as some researchers have suggested, but it just adds to the long list.

Yes, they overdid the whole aids iceberg coming to kill us all in the 80's and beyond, but in a way I'm glad they did as it made people more aware of safe sex. Now I know some have said safe sex is not always a given, but in my experience and others I know it would be the majority, the majority of the time.

Phototoxin · 03-07-2008 08:19PM

simple solution for a lot of people with aids (not those born wiht it) : dont have sex.

simple solution for those without. Dont have sex until you are married and have 1 partner (mormon marages dont count!).

simple.

Studies in asia have shown that where a 'protective' mentality was adopted by governments Aids spreads whereas more 'tradtional' (and by that a lot of you obviously will read churchinducedsexualrepression ) methods such as keeping your motherf**king snake in its mutha****ing cage until you are sorted with one partner meant that stds dropped.

Earthhorse · 03-07-2008 09:12PM

dublindude wrote: »

This does suggest, somewhat, that AIDS is not solely due to unsafe sex. There must be other factors, such as already having a ****ed immune system, or possibly the figures in Africa being somewhat bogus.

Or it could just be all the stuff tallaght01 pointed out in his post.

AARRRGH · 03-07-2008 09:30PM

Earthhorse wrote: »

Or it could just be all the stuff tallaght01 pointed out in his post.

Well, I don't think anyone really knows what's going on. We all agree though that there must be multiple factors, so let's leave it at that.

Phototoxin wrote:

simple solution for a lot of people with aids (not those born wiht it) : dont have sex.

simple solution for those without. Dont have sex until you are married and have 1 partner (mormon marages dont count!).

simple.

That might be simple if you're a mentally ill religious type. But for normal people, what you have suggested isn't a viable option.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 04-07-2008 02:49AM

joejoem wrote: »

I have a question... Why are men who have sex with men more at risk, I'm trying to think is it because its Anal? If so, is it not as high a risk for a man to catch it off a woman in the case of Anal (or visa versa..)

Also, havent cases in Ireland gone up significantly?

It's not precisely an anal issue, also a homosexual male-sex one. When a man has unprotected sex or the condom breaks with a women he doesn't end up with semen inside him. Semen carries the virus so if it's inside you for a prolonged period you have a higher chance of catching the virus.

Women have a much higher chance than a man having heterosexual sex(or non-receptive anal sex) of catching it from a positive partner for the same reason. However I'd imagine the less promiscuous nature of females compared to gay men is what has protected them from a similar transmission rate.

Sherifu wrote:

If the stereotypes are to be believed.

Could also be the lack of tayto packets.

Well... they have differing shaped heads/bodies(like all races) so I don't see why genitalia couldn't be different

Thanks to those who replied to me about the Africa question, lot of good info from people, unfortunately couldn't thank the posts

studiorat · 04-07-2008 04:50PM

Earthhorse wrote: »

Next you'll be getting us all to buy Foo Fighters CDs.

It can?

???? Foo Fighters?
I don't get it?

AIDS "epidemic"

Comments