| Gary Stein 2004-09-28, 4:17 am |
|
"Sean McHugh" <smchugh@shoal.net.au> wrote in message
news:4152AB24.530252C1@shoal.net.au...
> No One wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ah, you certainly are a True Believer. You are suggesting that
> straight sex is the reason that HIV rate is so high amongst partakers
> of male anal sex!! I don't think I need to add comment.
>
>
>
>
> Like the US? I don't the figures from there can help you.
>
>
>
> And?
>
>
> So that the way to deal with opposing argument, snip it! Anyway, I
> suspect you aren't quite telling the truth. I don't believe the
> statistics that I have presented have been discussed before. Anyway,
> I'm sure that there are other readers out there who would like to hear
> your explanation. I'll therefore reissue it further down.
>
> The bottom line is that it is that, in Australia, a small percentage
> of the population accounts for a large percent of HIV infection. If
> this has been discussed many times before, you should have little
> difficulty in properly and plausibly submitting what is wrong with it.
>
> If you think that bisexuals can account for the disparity, why don't
> you present a hypothetical model with percentages for sexual
> orientation and explain how it can resolve it? The model doesn't have
> to be the solution to the apparent disparity, only one (of possibly
> many) that sounds reasonable. At the moment all you have shown
> yourself able to do is snip and hand wave. Here it is again:
>
> http://www.avert.org/ausstatg.htm
>
> AUSTRALIA HIV & AIDS STATISTICS SUMMARY:
>
> | Transmission in Australia continues to occur primarily through
> | sexual contact between men. A history of male homosexual contact was
> | reported in more than 85% of newly acquired HIV infection diagnosed
> | in 1997 to 2001.
>
> Now 85% to 15% is already a very significant disparity. When one
> considers that homosexual males only occupy a small percentage of the
> population, it gets worse by at least a magnitude. For instance, if
> 10% of males are homosexual then they would represent 5% of the
> people. That would mean that the 85% to 15% ratio (or 5.66:1) has to
> be multiplied by (95:5) to find the relative pro rata HIV infection
> rate. It comes to 107. That means that the statistics and some simple
> arithmetic show that, in Australia, the infection rate among
> homosexual males is massively higher than in the rest of the
> community. That is still going to be the case even with the most
> wishful demographic proportioning of homosexuality within Australia.
> However I think that practicing homosexual males would represent
> less than two percent of the population. You can try to stretch that,
> but you will never stretch it far enough to render the diagnosed
> infection rate within homosexual males to be anything but _very_
> disproportionally large.
Were in this thread have you seen anyone say that MSM/Homosexual men do not
represent a disproportionably large segment of those who are HIV infected in
the US or for that matter Australia?
That was never the argument, Zim simply made some assumptions about certain
numbers that I and others challenged. We did not deny the fact that HIV has
impacted the MSM community much harder then it has other subgroups of the US
population. Though MSM is no longer the fastest growing (% growth in new
cases comparing the previous year to the current year) category in the US.
After several years of declining new HIV cases in the MSM category we then
see a small rise in MSM infections for 2003. While the number of new cases
for Hispanic and Black women are increasing at a much higher rate. Granted
I am not saying the number of cases are larger for them then for MSM, but
rather as shown by the percentage of growth in cases in those subgroups from
one year to the next.
Gary Stein
Gary Stein
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
> Sean McHugh
|