Tal responds to me:
quote:
I'm glad you brought statistics to back that up.
Oh wait...you didn't.
That's because you had mentioned your source, I know it, and I admonished you to read the whole thing. Instead, you decided to go quote mining and only mention the US numbers as if they are indicative of the world as a whole.
But since you insist, fine. These are all from
Avert. Please note, Avert gets its information from UNAIDS/WHO. Strange how you are relying upon UN numbers when you don't seem to hold the UN in very high esteem, but I digress. To the numbers:
World estimates of the HIV & AIDS epidemics at the end of 2004
Number of people living with HIV/AIDS in 2004 Estimate* Range*
Total 39.4 35.9-44.3
Adults 37.2 33.8-41.7
Women 17.6 16.3-19.5
Children <15 2.2 2.0- 2.6
People newly infected with HIV in 2004 Estimate* Range*
Total 4.9 4.3- 6.4
Adults 4.3 3.7- 5.7
Children <15 0.64 0.57-0.75
AIDS deaths in 2004 Estimate* Range*
Total 3.1 2.8- 3.5
Adults 2.6 2.3- 2.9
Children <15 0.51 0.46-0.60
* millions
Now, let's take a look at these numbers. Do you see the reason for the breakdown? Yes, that's right. There's a difference between the total number of people infected and the people who were recently infected. It allows us to trace the history of the epidemic and see what is going on.
It is stupid to look at the total numbers and think that they are applicable to the current situation.
But let's continue, shall we?
Regional statistics for HIV & AIDS end of 2004
Region Adults & Children Adults & Children Adult Infection Deaths of
Living with HIV/AIDS* Newly Infected Rate (%) Adults & Children*
Sub-Saharan Africa 25.4 3.1 7.4 2.3
East Asia 1.1 0.29 0.1 0.051
South and South-East Asia 7.1 0.89 0.6 0.49
Oceania 0.035 0.005 0.2 0.0007
Eastern Europe & Central Asia 1.4 0.21 0.8 0.060
Western & Central Europe 0.61 0.021 0.3 0.0065
North Africa & Middle East 0.54 0.092 0.3 0.028
North America 1.0 0.044 0.6 0.016
Caribbean 0.44 0.053 2.3 0.036
Latin America 1.7 0.24 0.6 0.095
Global Total 39.4 4.9 1.1 3.1
* millions
Now, let's take a look at these numbers. What do we see? The epidemic is primarily concentrated in Africa, accounting for a little more than 82% of the total. Looking at North America, we find that they make up only about 2.5% of the total.
So one has to ask: Why would anybody look at the US as a representative sample of how the epidemic has spread? It represents such a tiny, tiny fraction of the total. But then again, there is a difference between the total and the current, so let's look at that ratio. Africa makes up about a little more than 81% of the total of new infections and North America makes up only 0.9% of the total of newly infected. It would seem that HIV infection rates are falling in North America compared to the rest of the world.
But we still need to wonder: Why would anybody look at the US as a representative sample of how the epidemic is spreading since it makes up such a tiny, tiny fraction of the newly infected.
But let's continue, shall we?
Estimated adult and adolescent HIV diagnoses in 2003 by exposure category
Exposure Category Male Female Total
Male-to-male sexual contact 14,532 - 14,532
Injection drug use 3,189 1,628 4,817
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 1,224 - 1,224
Heterosexual contact 4,041 6,942 10,983
Other/risk not identified 168 163 331
Total 23,153 8,733 31,886
* Because totals are calculated independently of the subpopulations, the values in each column may not sum exactly to the figure in the Total row
Here we see that, once again, there is no indication of heterosexual sex
and IDU. It is merely assumed that if you use drugs and are straight, you got your HIV from the drug use, not the sex. That is an extremely unreasonable thing to do, so let's be fair. If we're going to count MSM
and IDU, we should also count heterosexual sex
and IDU.
Those with male-male sex as a vector accounts for 49.4% of the total. For those with heterosexual sex as a vector accounts for 49.5%.
Well, whaddaya know! In 2003, there were more heterosexuals being infected with HIV than gay men were! Not many, to be sure, but it would seem that straight people aren't nearly as pure as some would have us believe.
Now, of course, there are many more straights than gays in the population. While the raw number of straights and MSM (and let us never forget that MSM does not mean gay) are equivalent, the percentage of their resective populations is important and, indeed, the average gay man is more likely to be infected than the average straight person.
But not by much. We went through this in another thread.
Shall we continue?
Estimated adult and adolescent AIDS diagnoses by exposure category
Exposure category 2003 diagnoses Cumulative diagnoses
Male Female Total Male Female Total
Male-to-male sexual contact 17,969 - 17,969 440,887 - 440,887
Injection drug use 6,353 3,096 9,449 175,988 70,558 246,546
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 1,877 - 1,877 62,418 - 62,418
Heterosexual contact 5,133 8,127 13,260 56,403 93,586 149,989
Other/risk not identified 281 276 557 14,191 6,535 20,726
Total 31,614 11,498 43,112 749,887 170,679 920,565
* Because totals are calculated independently of the subpopulations, the values in each column may not sum exactly to the figure in the Total row
In this case, we find that for the total, those with MSM as a risk total 49.6% of the total while those with heterosexual sex as a risk total 43.1%. Not that far off. And notice, since we just found out that the current year shows that there are more heterosexuals newly infected than MSM, we find that HIV is become increasingly a heterosexually transmitted disease in the US.
But that's just the US. Now, my claim is that looking only at the US is a stupid thing to do, so let's take a look at some other places. How about the UK, for example?
How people probably became infected by year
Route of transmission
Year of diagnosis
Sex between Sex between men Injecting
men* and women drug use
1988 or earlier 7925 713 1653
1989 1456 360 213
1990 1705 535 201
1991 1715 649 243
1992 1640 780 187
1993 1509 773 205
1994 1486 794 167
1995 1475 855 182
1996 1554 837 172
1997 1409 1010 170
1998 1371 1163 131
1999 1368 1439 113
2000 1517 2009 112
2001 1770 2883 133
2002 1825 3594 112
2003 1803 3975 118
Until end Sept 2004 884 1804 58
Total 32412 24173 4170
* Includes 739 men who had also injected drugs
Looky here! It would seem that heterosexuals (and remember, the heterosexual statistic doesn't include those who use drugs while the MSM statatistic does) became the most common form of transmission of HIV in the UK back in 1999! And it kept on getting worse!
So where do you get off saying that it's primarily a MSM disease? Oh, that's right! You confused
total numbers with
yearly numbers. See, I said that that was an incorrect thing to do before you did it, so why did you do it?
But that's just the UK. What about the rest of Europe? Well, from the Avert site:
Of the 18,030 people with newly diagnosed HIV which the West reported in 2003,
- 58% probably acquired HIV through heterosexual contact
- 30% were homo/bisexual men
- 11% were injecting drug users
58%, Tal. What do you think that means? Isn't that more than half? And again, they separate out the IDUs from the heterosexuals while including the IDUs with the gays, so 58% is actually an
underestimate of the problem for straights while 30% is an
overestimate of the problem for gays.
But that's just Western Europe. What about the rest? Well, Central Europe is difficult given the governmental situation there. Only 1440 cases of HIV infection were reported in 2003 and only 21,043 total cases. They don't include much information about transmission rates but we do know that Central Europe has the highest number of pediatric cases in Europe due to an outbreak in Romania.
Eastern Europe? From Avert:
Of the 54,504 new diagnoses of HIV reported in 2003, only 59% were reported with a transmission group. Of these, 61% were in injecting drug users, 24% were from heterosexual infections, and 0.3% were in men who have sex with men.
Well hell, it would seem that heterosexuals are 100 times more likely to have been infected with HIV than MSM, but we have a problem with governmental reporting.
But let's put it all together: Western Europe has HIV being predominantly transmitted via heterosexual sex...more than half. Central Europe has practically no cases. Eastern Europe has it mostly as IDU (and again, they seem to think that if you're straight and a drug user, you always got it via the drugs and not the sex), but the next one up there is heterosexual sex and MSMs are practically non-existent.
Therefore, we can say that Europe has HIV transmitted primarily through heterosexual sex compared to male-male sex.
Let's not forget Canada:
AIDS cases in adults (15 or over) by exposure category
Exposure Category Male Female
2003 Cumulative total 2003 Cumulative total
until end June 2004 until end June 2004
Men who have sex with men (MSM) 79 13006 - -
MSM and injection drug use 6 793 - -
Injection drug use 30 1001 10 364
Blood/blood products 1 454 0 135
Heterosexual contact 54 1622 48 1058
Other/no identified risk factor 14 709 4 78
Total 184 17585 62 1635
Canada's a bit like Central Europe. They have practically no cases. Only 20,000 cases
total and only 250 were infected in 2003.
But looky! In 2003, 85 MSM (including the IDUs) were infected with HIV while 108 heterosexuals were infected...and that doesn't include the IDUs! Once again, we find that HIV is now being transmitted primarily through heterosexual sex.
Now, Australia is still following the classic 80s US model. Most cases of HIV infection are still happening among MSM. In the past five years, 85% of all cases of infection seem to have happened via MSM. Note, this is much higher than the US.
But then again, Australia is kinda like Canada: They only have about 24,000 cases of HIV
total. They are hardly much of a factor in an epidemic that is numbered in the tens of millions.
Now, we can go on and on and indeed, the US is not the single, only place in the world where MSM outpaces heterosexual sex. But again, the US and Latin America and Australia make up a tiny fraction of the epidemic as a whole. HIV is primarily found in places like Africa and South East Asia where HIV is primarily transmitted via heterosexual sex. When you look at the whole, three-quarters of all HIV transmission throughout the world for the entire length of the epidemic happened via heterosexual sex. The next most common is IDU, and that ignores the possibility that those people might have acquired it through heterosexual sex.
For you to say, "Look at the US!" and then try to claim that this is some grand example of how homosexuality is cursed because of the prevalence of HIV is simply stupid. It would be akin to saying that since most people in the US are white, most people in the world are white. There are very specific reasons why the US has a high percentage of HIV transmission via MSM. They cannot survive in the long term and, indeed, we're seeing it happen: Transmission via MSM has declined while transmission via heterosexual sex has skyrocketed.
quote:
So, if you would kindly retract your statement: "In fact, the US is pretty much the last place on earth to find HIV primarily transmitted via male-male sex."
Nope. That would be lying. You wouldn't want me to lie, would you?
quote:
quote:
And, of course, you have completely overlooked the fact that homosexuality does not mean gay men.
Wrong again! The statistics were specifically of homosexual men.
Incorrect. Why do you think they call it "men who have sex with men" rather than "homosexuality/bisexuality"? It's because that simply counting the number of penises and vaginas in the room does not tell you if the participants are gay or not. By that logic, only gay people go to prison. By that logic, the military is filled with gay people and we should simply abandon DADT as completely ridiculous. You seem to be of the opinion that it doesn't matter how many women a man has sex with...suck one dick and you're gay.
And, of course, there is the big void in your story: You're assuming that "homosexual" means "gay male." Women are gay, too. You are claiming that homosexual sex is bad because of HIV, but women have homosexual sex, too, and HIV transmission from women having sex with women is almost unheard of.
quote:
quote:
If you're going to use HIV transmission as the criterion for morality with regard to sexual activity, then lesbians must be god's favorite because it's practically unheard of to find HIV transmitted via female-female sex.
This seems to be the case. Why do you think that is?
Biology.
But you seem to think it has something to do with morality. You are the one saying that homosexuality is bad because homosexuality is connected with HIV transmission. But lesbians are homosexual, too, and woman/woman sex has practically no chance of HIV transmssion.
Therefore, by your own logic, homosexuality is actually a
good thing because it is an extremely low chance of HIV transmission.
Since when did "homosexual" equate to male?
edited to move /pre tags to fix page width - the Queen
This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 01-15-2005 21:54 AM
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
™ Version 4.2