From: michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan)
Subject: Re: More AIDS absurdity - 1Billion AIDS cases
Organization: Resonex Inc., Sunnyvale CA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:36:07 GMT

In article <71964@cup.portal.com> Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:
>Asia. But he also told me an excellent example of numbers that ARE wrong
>was the guy who threw out the number of 1 Billion infections. "He must
>have misplaced a zero somewhere, that's obviously completely absurd".

So 100 million is more accurate?  I have a *very* hard time believing
there will be that few new infections over the next 100 years, unless
a cure is found, or the world's nuclear arsenal is let loose.  In a
world with over 5 billion people currently, and that number growing
exponentially, it doesn't take a genius to see that 1 billion
infections is not out of the question over a time period when you will
have five new generations of people born.  Assume the population even
stays constant at 5 billion (which it likely won't); 1 billion
infections over 100 years is 10 million/year, or only 0.2% infection
rate.  Easily possilble.  It's a horrifying number, but it isn't
dismissible out of hand.

>The SF Young Mens' survey showed that even men who ALWAYS used condoms had
>HIV+ at just as high a rate as those with 20+ partners.

More highly inadequate statistics, but then, we expect that from you.
Especially since you tried to throw around statistics from this survey
before.  Of those with 20+ partners, how often did they use condoms?
How were the men selected for the survey?  What was the sample size?
How reliable are the answers?  It is not uncommon for people to lie
about condom use, and claim they always use one even if they haven't,
especially if asked by people they know, or in the presence of people
they know.  Citing a couple of marginally related statistics from a
single survey of uknown validity is hardly a decent argument.

>there is no documented evidence that use of condoms is related to
>to a recorded zero HIV infection rate.

If you're trying to say that condoms are not 100% effective, the
response is "of course not".  Why don't you go out and read some
reliable information about AIDS prevention?  Unprotected anal sex is
generally classified as "highly unsafe".  Protected (via latex condom
and proper lubricants) anal sex is called "risky" or "marginally
safe", but by no means is it ever claimed to be 100% safe, at least
not by reliable sources.  That's a *far* different matter from saying
condoms are ineffective.  Oral sex is considered "risky" or "unsafe".
Oral sex with a condom is generally considered to be much safer.  The
documented truth is that condoms are very effective at greatly
*reducing* the risk of HIV transmission.  Anyone who claimed 100%
effectiveness against infection would be as crazy as someone who
claimed they were ineffective.

The only way to absolutely guarantee 100% safety from sexual activity
is to never have sex with another person.  Even monogamy isn't an
absolute guarantee --- your partner could be infected without you
knowing it, due to any number of reasons, including a hidden affair.
The vast majority of people are not going to abstain totally from sex,
so it becomes a matter of making sex as safe as you can.  Condoms are
one way in which sex can be made safer.

Rather than being hysterical about the subject, and trying to get other
people to do likewise, why don't you go out and educate yourself about
AIDS and HIV?  Go talk to people at the SF AIDS Foundation, or any
other number of good resources.  Virtually everyone in the world is
ultimately at some level of risk with this disease;  the better
educated we become, the better chance we have of avoiding that
all-too-possible figure of 1 billion infections over 100 years.

-- 
Michael Bryan     michael@resonex.com
Xref: sparky ca.politics:10441 talk.politics.misc:64876