Rate of new infections
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22ra...+infections%22




Collaborative WeBLog
The Strategy. Get tested together before you have sex
http://NotB4WeKnow.EditThisPage.com
http://NotB4WeKnow.blog-city.com

http://www.metrokc.gov/health/APU/he...nd/usrates.gif
http://www.metrokc.gov/health/APU/he...ground/epi.htm




Collaborative WeBLog
The Strategy. Get tested together before you have sex
http://NotB4WeKnow.EditThisPage.com
http://NotB4WeKnow.blog-city.com

"Don Saklad" <dsaklad@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote...
I'll rant first and look at the links later to see if I'm right. I predict
that the number of U.S. new HIV infections is INCREASING, and that the rate
of increase is accelerating! When the new drugs came out around 1995 I
predicted that the number of those infected with HIV would start to increase
dramatically, as the older generation of infectees would no longer be
dying off from AIDS and would continue to infect new victims for decades
instead of the average 3-5 years they had before. The generation of
infected that were within a year or two of death in 1995 are still alive
today, around 3x what their life span would have been. This means they
have had an opportunity to infect 3x as many people, and they drugs are
very effective and that generation still shows no sign of dying (in fact,
they look disturbingly healthy), so there is no reason to believe that
a 10x extended lifespan won't mean 10x as many infected.

I realize my analysis will upset some of you, but it is the truth. Y'all
live in a fantasy world, a world where someone who has wild, promiscuous,
indiscriminate, unprotected sex with hundreds of partners a year suddenly
become a celibate monk once receiving his HIV+ diagnosis. Oh sure, SOME
might go celibate or become extraordinarily cautious, but they are a
tiny minority - the vast majority carries on exactly as before. The
attitude I've seen in recent years is that HIV is no longer a deadly
contagious plague, but rather just a minor inconvenience that can easily
be treated by popping a pill. With this sort of attitude, I can't
imagine that anyone who cared so little about themselves to avoid infection
would give a shit about infecting others, especially as it's just a minor
inconvenience, no worse or more stigmatizing than a cold sore.

(Followups trimmed as I don't read most of those groups)

Zim <zim@irk.gov> wrote in article <9qF2d.4598$mb6.4440@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink. net>:

Rant all you want, but please be aware of two things. First, you're
responding to a drive-by who is only very rarely interested in conversation.

Second, the drive-by you're responding to has crossposted his screed
all over the place, and your response is likewise crossposted. I beg
you, if you must respond to his messages, please do so in your home
group, and don't crosspost. Thank you.

--
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it." -- Beatrice Hall

Cally Soukup soukup@pobox.com

Zim wrote:
Yes, and there are several reasons for that. In the 1980's plus there
newspaper
photos, television stories of people from alll walks of life dying of
AIDS as well
as many commercials about the risks related to unsafe sexual practices.
While I don't have
television, I understand that there are few stories and few commercials
about safe sex
pracitices on television or in the media. There are no reminders of how
serious and risky
risky behavour is.



When the new drugs came out around 1995 I
Each individual has to protect themselves against AIDS. The AIDS status
of any
sexual active individual is very, very difficult to determine. Even if
an
individual is tested daily, it taks a certain number of weeks before a
positive result can
be detected or seen.

Your analysis is just that, yours.

The whole planet lives in a fantasy world and that is why the planet is
in such
trouble.

Those individuals that act in such a way and have such a status can
infect no one
who protects themselves.

The reason they send young people off to war is that they think they
will come back
alive a hero. Nobody tells them othewise. They are never told by anyone
the likelihood
is that you will be a replacement soldier in a platoon for somebody who
was unfortunately
killed and you are likely to get killed yourself and that is what
replacement soldiers
are all about.

Your comments here are helpful to no one but are an attack on a group of
people called homosexuals.

This a nice wild generalization. The drug companies are many,
presumably owned
and operated by heterosexuals who make these aids fighting drugs. If
they
tell such stories of pill popping longgevity, why aren't they being
taking to task for it?


Dramatic writing. You see, older homosexuals are no different than
older heterosexuals, they understand and
know they world as it really is. Sadly, young heterosexuals and
particularly yonger homosexuals don't see the world as it really is.
Being discriminated against, disowned by their parents, the church and
the community at large, they often suffer from a host of problems not
the least of which is low self-esteem which can have
a detrimental effect on their early youth development and in some cases
be deadly or deriously damaging.

Your post hasn't analized how to help these people but only to blame
them for a world problem.

"occupant" <electronicmailfixtosend@telus.net> schreef in bericht news:414C05D5.6BD3452@telus.net...
This is "interesting". They're suggesting that the number
of people dying of AIDS is the same as the number of
new infections.

Do they have any hard evidence for that at all??

Alex

"Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote...
Well, a week or two ago I had posted the CDC data for the "30 selected regions"
(29 U.S. states and the U.S. Virgin Islands) which included both non-AIDS
HIV infections as well as diagnosed AIDS cases. I got flak for using that
data because it "didn't include the entire nation," but national HIV data
does not exist. National data for diagnosed AIDS cases does exist for all
50 states, though only 29 states and the USVI report HIV infections to the
CDC. What I did notice for the 30 selected regions is that the number of
diagnosed AIDS cases VERY ROUGHLY matched the number of reported non-AIDS
HIV infections. I suggested that the missing non-AIDS HIV infection data
could be extrapolated for the missing 21 states by assuming roughly equal
HIV & AIDS rates apply to them as well. I was corrected and told that
it wouldn't be "extrapolation," but merely an estimate with no official
validity. Still, I think it is sufficient to suggest that the data you're
referring to (showing equal rates for AIDS cases and new HIV infections)
is not too far off the mark.

I have been doing research myself on the topic, and i have found
similar information!