Okay, correct me if wrong, but I have done a few brief calculations on how widespread AIDS is among us Homosexuals and Bisexuals From my research, 0.5% of the US population is infected with HIV or AIDS, right. About 6/10 People with Aids or HIV are either bisexual or homosexual, right.... So then, considering the fact that roughly 4% of the USA is either bisexual or homosexual (I say roughly because there is more controversy over that percent than clouds in the sky). So then, since we can thusly conclude that 1/2 of 6/10= 3/10, percent, that is, 0.3% of the population is gay/bisexual and has aids or HIV. If that is true, we can multiply the percent of gays/bi's to 100% by 25, then do the same to 0.3.... That would mean that 7.5% of the gay/bisexual population would have either HIV or AIDS. That's 7.5% of the gay/bi population with HIV or AIDS, people who skimmed that. So then, in this thread, do you think that is a good,bad, horrible, or wonderful thing. And, if you want to use this against homophobes bringing up the 'unhealthy lifestyle' card, this means you can say that "less than 1/10 homosexuals and bisexuals have AIDS/HIV"
No. The current CDC statistic is a whopping 20%, or 1/5. It's a severe epidemic; don't cover it up with PC-ness and activism because that only gets more people sick. Almost nobody I talk to seems to think condoms are acceptable after relationships and this is an infuriating ideology that perpetuates the problem. I've already told one person who pulled the "trust" card on me to hit the road. Everyone needs to do their part in this veritable public health emergency and always wrap it up.
Hmm.... How did I get my calculations wrong. That doesn't make sense. I should erase this thread now, shouldn't I. Where did I go wrong.... If 0.3% of the population is gay and infected, and 4% of the population is gay/bi, that would mean that 7.5% is infected. Is my research wrong? Confuzzlment?
I think something's wrong with your methodology. But most surveys center around the 18-21% mark. Wearing condoms consistently utterly slashes your risk of HIV infection and is the best thing you can do.
I respect and understand the point you are trying to make, and even if it were 7.5% that still would be a high percentage for a population. However, there is no logical way to support either of these statistics when dealing with topics such as orientation and sexuality. There is simply no basis or data that can be recovered other than "There are this many homosexuals that come to clinics with HIV and let me create a number as to how many homosexuals I believe there to be in society." Everyone should do there part to protect each other, but we don't have the capability to start shooting down statistics.
Must be dang it It seemed logical... Can anyone else see where the flaw in my reasoning was? ---------- Post added 19th May 2013 at 11:57 AM ---------- And I admit it is mostly an estimate Gen. I just hope that there wasn't a major flaw in my reasoning.
Any statistic taken is an extrapolated sample of a population, that's just a limitation of statistical analysis. But to suggest there's no disproportionate epidemic of HIV in the MSM population simply because it sounds bad is a ludicrous sanitization of reality that will only worsen the gay community. I'm sorry to say it, but your risk is not the same as a straight man's. And the more people know this, the more that will diligently protect themselves.
Who is saying any of that? Even following the understanding of Bobby's post. The statistic for Bi and Homosexuals is still 15 times the average percentage for the population. As I said in my previous post, it is extremely important to understand the danger of the disease, but it is nonsensical to run around as if the sky is falling. I still respect your opinion of protection, and completely agree. However, as you said, "Any statistic taken is an extrapolated sample of a population, that's just a limitation of statistical analysis." Which does not give you the authority to simply slice down what Bobby is presenting as ridiculous and "covering up reality".
.005 x 313.9 million = 1.5695 million people with HIV in the US .60 x 1.5695 million = 0.9417 million people with HIV are gay or bisexual if the 6/10 statistic is accurate. 4% of 313.9 million = 12.556 million gay or bisexual men in the US 0.9417/12.556 = ~7.5% So the math works out... like Gen says I'd assume it's just different people making different estimates.
I'm not saying Bobby does it, but a lot of other people I've spoken with have bent and twisted numbers, trying desperately to convince themselves they had nothing to worry about with AIDS infection. In these situations, it's important to put aside emotions, and look at reality. Sometimes it really is as bad as it looks.
But what you have says cuts both ways. You can still caution the importance of the situation without swiftly shooting someone else's analysis down. As I said, 7.5% is still unreasonable high when talking about large populations.
Heres a UK related article from late last year. BBC News - Highest-ever HIV diagnoses in gay men It says 1 in 20 men who have had sex with men have HIV, so i presume thts diagnosed figures. Still scary since its such a devastating disease!
Well, your arithmetic is sound, given the assumptions you used. But... we're comparing apples to oranges. You're calculating it for the entire population. The 20% (and higher) numbers are all pretty specific for MSM (men who have sex with men). I don't have data on HIV in lesbians and bisexual women, but it might well be much lower than for men (for starters, it's a lot easier for men to infect each other). Which means that they are "driving down" the average you'd get from calculating just with men. So... both numbers might be reasonably correct. We're just not all comparing the same datasets.
Of course, we're not just talking about statistics, but a complex epidemic. One factor that has not yet been discussed or accounted for here is the current rise in STDs, such as gonorrhea (newer more drug-resistant strains making an appearance), syphilis, herpes, chlamydia, and trichomoniasis. These diseases increase both the host's susceptibility and infectiousness with regard to HIV. More on this topic can be found in following link from the CDC: STD Facts - HIV/AIDS & STDs From this link: "Individuals who are infected with STDs are at least two to five times more likely than uninfected individuals to acquire HIV infection if they are exposed to the virus through sexual contact. In addition, if an HIV-infected individual is also infected with another STD, that person is more likely to transmit HIV through sexual contact than other HIV-infected persons (Wasserheit, 1992)." When I had myself tested for HIV and STDs on Friday, I saw a chart indicating a 62% rise in the number of cases of gonorrhea. Current treatments for this STD are becoming less effective the first time around, so they have had to implement a one-month follow up for secondary treatment, as required. These are not diseases to be trifled with, although no longer a death sentence, HIV is a tedious and expensive way to live. Testing is the only way to know for sure, safe sex greatly reduces but does not eliminate the risk. I was negative for HIV, awaiting results for STDs next week (50% of carriers are asymptomatic).
Also, keep in mind there are some areas where the STI rates are believed to be much higher than the national average, and HIV is by no means the only STI that can cause serious problems. In Northern California, the state health department has been working to contain a *major* increase in syphillis infections. While curable, it can wreak absolute havoc on someone if not diagnosed and treated soon after infection, and the early symptoms can be easy to miss. If not diagnosed until it's advanced, it can be very difficult to cure. Additionally, hepatitis B and C and HIV are all thought to be much more prevalent than the national averages among gay men in San Francisco. The same is true for many other urban centers with high gay populations... but keep in mind, all it takes is one guy who visits an urban city, goes to a bathhouse, gets infected, and goes back to his small town. He could then pass it on to 2 or 3 or 10 other people. That's exactly what happened when HIV was first introduced to this country by a flight attendant. And, based on many conversations I've had with people in their teens and 20s, Zontar is right on the money about the number of people who stop using condoms once they're in a relationship for a while. The whole "don't you trust me?" card is a big part of it, along with the bullshit "it's more romantic if there's no barrier between us." It's all a bunch of crap, and, of course, the truth is that unfortunately, many people *can't* be trusted. If you always play safe, then the likelihood of becoming HIV+, or of getting one of the other STIs is near zero. I really don't get why anyone would do anything else.
