From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.clinton,alt.sex
Subject: Re: AIDS crisis
Date: 11 Oct 92 17:33:10 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Oct11.084432.2053@schaefer.math.wisc.edu> junikka@schaefer.math.wisc.edu (Jari Junikka) writes:
>mgmam@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Mark A. Morrell) writes:
>
>>I don't remember where I got the info

It was in JAMA, approximately 1987 or 1988.  More recent studies seem
to indicate that the one in 500 number is an overestimate.

>>, but I did a speech for a class a
>>few years ago on AIDS, and I was looking through some technical medical
>>journals, and the numbers given in that journal (and backed up in other
>>journals that I read) were something like 1 in 500.  This number is the
>>chance that a male will contract HIV from a woman KNOWN to be HIV
>>positive, without protection.  While this may seem like kind of a low
>>percentage chance, remember that bodily fluids must pass from one person
>>into the other, and it isn't that common for a male to break his skin 
>>during sexual intercourse.
>
>>It's a very common misconception that this chance is higher, however
>>this is brought about because of the scare tactics used in the media.
>>This is typically misinformation used to bring about change for the
>>better.  While I'm not sure about the ethics of the deliberate
>>misconceptions put into the household, I am sure that whatever helps
>>even a little bit to slow down the spread of AIDS should be encouraged.
>>(Misinformation is not lying.  They don't quote statistics, but mislead
>>about the probability.)

It's dangerous for other reasons though.  It encourages everyone to
overestimate the dangers of other problems (remember media scares on
child abduction? global cooling? overpopulation? global warming?).  Enough
misinformation campaigns saying the sky is falling, and then, one day
when the sky is falling, people won't believe you when you cry wolf.
(How's that for a mixed metaphor?)  

Furthermore, a study by the University of Utrecht has shown that 
overestimating the risks of safer sex increases unsafe sex, because
people simply jettison the idea of safer sex if all direct expressions
of sexual desire are blocked.  Think about it -- what's the better
way to approach nutrition: saying all food is bad for you, or 
acknowledging that junk food is worse than some other fatty foods
which are worse than non-fatty foods?

>The actually probability of HIV infection in an unprotected intercourse
>is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT for an individual. 

No.  It's completely relevant.  

>Think about the mechanics how
>this number is arrived at. It is impossible to scientifically "calculate"
>the probability. 

Not true.

>There are simply too many unknown factors. Instead,
>you try to find a sample population, compile the statistics and try to
>estimate the actual probability from that.

Or, you can actually take several dozen couples where one partner was
infected, the other wasn't, and see how many of the couples ended up
infecting each other.  (In response to the earlier question about the
study of the heterosexual couples, it was by Dr. Nancy Padian and was
in a 1991 issue of JAMA.)

>Here comes the problem for an individual who tries to decide whether it
>is reasonable risk to have unsafe sex or not. How does the invidual KNOW
>that her and her sex partners cases reflect the "average" situation
>in the sample. The factors can vary a lot and the probability of contracting
>HIV might be very high for this particular case.

First of all, you can't contract HIV from someone who doesn't have it.
The vast vast majority of non-IVDU women do not have HIV.  Even if they
did, it's, at most, one in 500 from incident of sex (and almost certainly
much less than that if you're not subject to penile bleeding during sex).
Add in a condom (which is just good birth control, and should be used anyway),
and suddenly you're talking about one in 500 million.  You're more likely
to be hit by lightning (more than one in about 400 million in any one day).

>You can also look at it this way: have you ever played any of the lottery
>games in various states? What were you chances of winning? I bet less than
>1 in 500, at least for any of the larger prizes. You still played.
>Feel free to play at the HIV lottery with even higher chance of winning..
>I wouldn't.

Would I sleep with a woman, knowing she was HIV+?  Probably not.  Yeah,
one in 500 is pretty high, if it's really that high (and I don't believe
that it is).

But, fortunately, not all women are HIV+.
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first