wood burning stoves 2.0*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes Call for Global Taxation Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "Call for Global Taxation" Watch "Call for Global Taxation" New topic
Author

Call for Global Taxation

frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Herb : In any context, US or global, AIDS is not the leading the cause of mortality.


Max :[shortened] What one of your statements is supported by the fact that AIDs is not the leading cause of global deaths? I'm failing to follow your logic.



Herb : I'm not sure I understand how I am being misunderstood. To be be more plain:
a) AIDS is not the leading cause of death in the US.
b) AIDS is not the leading cause of death on planet Earth.

I consider the above simply a restatement of my statement you quoted and my general position on this matter.


Herb : Even if I grant you that US hetero women are increasing as AIDS cases, in terms of absolute numbers, the mortality level is low as is plainly indicated in my prior post.

Max : I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you suggesting that your priori statement that morality leads to the majority of AIDs deaths justifies the observation that the fastest growing population if AIDs victims(in America) are heterosexual women?


Herb : I never said "morality", which has quite a different meaning from "mortality".


Herb : Life and death should NOT be a plaything of political correctness or popularity.

Max : I'm not sure I understand this statement. Are you saying that Life and Death are political playthings of political correctness, with regards to AIDs? Are you saying that Life and Death are political playthings of popularity, with regards to AIDs? Or are you making a general, philosophical statement about the sanctity of life?


Herb : I'm making a statement that there is an unwarranted presumption that has been fostered in our culture for the past decade or so, about the importance of the AIDS. Although relatively less true in recent years, AIDS activists have taken center stage in the media and general public awareness, taking an unwarranted disproportionate share of public attention and funds. More people dying of other diseases are dying in greater numbers yet receiving less attention. Allocating resources to fight disease should not be done because some groups have greater political or media influence than others.

[ January 27, 2005: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]
[ January 27, 2005: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]
Max Habibi
town drunk
( and author)
Sheriff

Joined: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 4118
Herb : In any context, US or global, AIDS is not the leading the cause of mortality

That's not accurate. In parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, it is the leading cause of death. And certainly in the world stage, it's a very significant cause of death. Consider the following.
  • An estimated 37.8 million people worldwide are AIDs/HIV positive.1
  • HIV mortality is the 5th leading cause of death for people ages 25-44 in the United States.2(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/04news/infantmort.htm)
  • 2/3 of people infected with AIDs/HIV live in Sub-Saharan Africa; another 20 percent (7.4 million) live in Asia and the Pacific.3
  • Worldwide, approximately 11 of every 1000 adults aged 15 to 49 are HIV-infected. In Sub-Saharan Africa, about 7.5 percent of all adults in this age group are HIV-infected.4
  • 14,000 new infections occur every day. 5
  • In 2003, approximately 1,700 children under the age of 15 years, and 6,000 young people aged 15 to 24 years became infected with HIV every day. 6
  • More than 20 million people with HIV/AIDS have died from aids since 1981.7


  • You may be of the opinion that AIDs research is overfunded, and that is certainly your right. but I think you're in the minority on this issue, in terms of the general opinion of the United States.

    Herb : I'm making a statement that there is an unwarranted presumption that has been fostered in our culture for the past decade or so, about the importance of the AIDS. Although relatively less true in recent years, AIDS activists have taken center stage in the media and general public awareness, taking an unwarranted disproportionate share of public attention and funds. More people dying of other diseases are dying in greater numbers yet receiving less attention.

    Herb,

    Thanks for clarifying, I think I understand your opinion better now. Now, can you spell out for me what the presumption is? That AIDs is a global thread? Or the degree to which AIDs is a global thread?


    Allocating resources to fight disease should not be done because some groups have greater political or media influence than others.


    Also, consider that AIDs is a Lentivirus, a subgroup of retroviruses. That implies that solving the AIDs epidemic might have side-effect yields that can help other retroviruses. This is not a simple matter, and bears careful consideration. Unlike engineering, this is how medicine works. They look for patterns, trends, and generalities, whereas we look for concrete evidence. Generally, IMO, this is because they would rather have a false positive, and we would prefer a false negative.


    Would you agree that allocating resources to fight a given disease should be done on the persuasiveness of the argument made? It seems that the AIDs argument has been persuasive enough to convince America, as a whole, to fund a certain amount of research. Isn't that how we should decide things?

    M
    [ January 27, 2005: Message edited by: Max Habibi ]

    Java Regular Expressions
    frank davis
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Feb 12, 2001
    Posts: 1479
    Originally posted by Max Habibi:
    [qb]Herb : In any context, US or global, AIDS is not the leading the cause of mortality

    That's not accurate. In parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, ...
    [/QB]


    Especially after my prior clear clarification, I find this reply disingenuous. Despite the volume of your quoted statistics, no where is it indicated anywhere that AIDS is the leading cause of death on this planet. This should not be a point of debate unless there is some other agenda.
    frank davis
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Feb 12, 2001
    Posts: 1479
    Originally posted by Max Habibi:


    You may be of the opinion that AIDs research is overfunded, and that is certainly your right. but I think you're in the minority on this issue, in terms of the general opinion of the United States.


    Exactly my point; public opinion may have been distorted by those with "political voice" and swayed by media campaigns rather than facts. I really don't have survey stats available on this however.





    Thanks for clarifying, I think I understand your opinion better now. Now, can you spell out for me what the presumption is? That AIDs is a global thread? Or the degree to which AIDs is a global thread?



    The presumption that has been fostered is that somehow preventing deaths caused by AIDS is more deserving than preventing death by other causes.




    Also, consider that AIDs is a Lentivirus, a subgroup of retroviruses. That implies that solving the AIDs epidemic might have side-effect yields that can help other retroviruses. This is not a simple matter, and bears careful consideration...

    Would you agree that allocating resources to fight a given disease should be done on the persuasiveness of the argument made? It seems that the AIDs argument has been persuasive enough to convince America, as a whole, to fund a certain amount of research. Isn't that how we should decide things?



    I agree it is not a simple matter and I am open re-evalauting facts.

    I'm not certain we know with certaintity that most of America believes stopping more people from dying of cancer and the other leading 14 causes of death is less important than preventing a very much fewer number of people from dying of AIDS. In any event some things are not best evaluated by the average man on the street, this is why people spend time to become experts in various fields. Perhaps this is also why the Surgeon General is medically trained, why medical boards are composed of trained medical personnell rather than laymen, etc
    [ January 27, 2005: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]
    Steven Bell
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Dec 29, 2004
    Posts: 1071
    You AIDS statistics are a little misleading. More from the CDC:

    "The age-adjusted death rate from HIV infection in the U.S. declined an estimated 21 percent to a rate of 4.6 deaths per 100,000 in 1998, the lowest rate since 1987, after a 48 percent decline from 1996 to 1997. HIV mortality has declined more than 70 percent since 1995. The disease was the eighth leading cause of death in 1996, dropped out of the top 10 leading causes of death last year, and no longer ranks among the top 15 leading causes of death today. However, for the 25-44 year age group the disease still ranks fifth among leading causes of death."

    Here are some numbers:

    All Deaths 2,338,075

    AIDS deaths 13,210 *footnote "Included all other infectious and parasitic diseases"

    Alzheimers 22,824

    Diabetes 65,574

    Malignant neoplasms 538,947

    Major Cardiovascular Disease 939,610

    source
    Max Habibi
    town drunk
    ( and author)
    Sheriff

    Joined: Jun 27, 2002
    Posts: 4118
    Steven,

    The page you cited is from 1999(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/99news/aidsfall.htm), and six years out of relevence. The byline reads For Immediate Release Tuesday, October 5, 1999. A lof of people have died in the meantime.

    For more accurate information, please follow this link.

    All best,
    M
    Max Habibi
    town drunk
    ( and author)
    Sheriff

    Joined: Jun 27, 2002
    Posts: 4118
    Originally posted by herb slocomb:


    Especially after my prior clear clarification, I find this reply disingenuous.


    I'm going to ignore the not-nice nature of your reply, and ask why you feel that my statement was lacking in candor. Are you suggesting that the statement is not true? Or are you suggesting that we not count Africa when considering the number of lives lost to AIDs?

    M
    Max Habibi
    town drunk
    ( and author)
    Sheriff

    Joined: Jun 27, 2002
    Posts: 4118
    HS:Exactly my point; public opinion may have been distorted by those with "political voice" and swayed by media campaigns rather than facts. I really don't have survey stats available on this however.

    Anything it possible. However, I disagree that public opinion has been distorted: I think it is being reflected. It is my opinion that in this case public opinion has been expressed through our leaders, research institutions, and charitable contributions. IMO, people are voting with their feet, voice, and money.

    HS: The presumption that has been fostered is that somehow preventing deaths caused by AIDS is more deserving than preventing death by other causes.

    I disagree that such an opinion is held by the majority of people, or even the majority of people who are supportive of AIDs research. In contrast, I've found that the people who are supporting of one charity are often supportive of others as well.

    HS:I'm not certain we know with certaintity that most of America believes stopping more people from dying of cancer and the other leading 14 causes of death is less important than preventing a very much fewer number of people from dying of AIDS.

    I agree that we don't, and I further agree with your personal sentiment that stopping cancer and other leading causes of death are just as important. My personal opinion on the matter is that funding for all such research should increase, not that any of it should be slashed.
    Steven Bell
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Dec 29, 2004
    Posts: 1071
    Originally posted by Max Habibi:
    Steven,

    The page you cited is from 1999(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/99news/aidsfall.htm), and six years out of relevence. The byline reads [qb]For Immediate Release Tuesday, October 5, 1999. A lof of people have died in the meantime.

    All best,
    M[/QB]


    That was the most recent full study. If you look at your link note the estimated number (their emphasis, not mine).

    But still the numbers aren't far off.

    You have roughly 50 times the number of deaths due to "Malignant neoplasms", or cancer, and nearly 100 times the number of deaths due to Major Cardiovascular Disease, but I would bet AIDS gets more money than either of these. I'd appreciate if somebody looked that up.
    Max Habibi
    town drunk
    ( and author)
    Sheriff

    Joined: Jun 27, 2002
    Posts: 4118
    It may be the most recent full study( just out of curiosity, how do you know? I poked around the site, and couldn't find anything indicating that it was or was not), but that doesn't mean it's the most recent data available.

    There is more recent data that supersets your 1999 study in the link I cited from the CDC(which is from 2003). That seems like the more up-to-date source of information available, and probably

    As for the amount of money given to research Cancer, I suspect that you're gravely mistaken about that. I know that most states have, at least, several Cancer hospital. I suspect there are only a handful of AIDs hospital in the entire world, if that. That in itself suggests, in my opinion, that cancer funding outweights AIDs funding.

    I'm pretty sure that Cancer is still the 800 lbs Gorilla of the medical research world.

    M
    Warren Dew
    blacksmith
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Mar 04, 2004
    Posts: 1332
        
        2
    I think there's some confusion going on here between statistics on the overall "leading cause of death", globally or in particular nations, and the "leading cause of death ages 25-44".

    Even in undeveloped nations, the vast majority of people tend to die in childhood, before age 25, or when aged, after age 44. Only a tiny fraction - normally somewhere between 1% and 10%, depending on the country - die between 25 and 44. As a result, causes of mortality that don't preferentially strike children or the aged - for example, automobile accidents, murder, or AIDS - can end up being a "leading cause of death ages 25-44" even if they are only a tiny fraction of overall deaths.

    The difficulty of extracting clear comparisons from statistics with different baselines (like "age 25-44" versus an implied "all ages") may help explain why the media often pays disproportionate attention to some things while seemingly ignoring others, as in the case of AIDS versus malaria.
    Jason Menard
    Sheriff

    Joined: Nov 09, 2000
    Posts: 6450
    Important note concerning AIDS and most of the other diseases mentioned here. AIDS is infectuous, and therefore a greater public health threat. As a health care provider, I'm not going to contract cancer if I get stuck with a needle used on a cancer patient, nor am I likely to contract diabetes if struck with a needle used on a diabetes patient. If however I get stuck with a needle used by a patient with AIDS, I'm screwed. If I'm exposed to AIDS tainted blood and I'm not aware of the exposure, then if I were to become infected, I might unknowingly pass it on to my wife and unborn children.

    Point being, anything infectuous is likely going to be seen as more of a general threat as well as receive the bulk of the attention and push for funding.
    frank davis
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Feb 12, 2001
    Posts: 1479
    Originally posted by Steven Bell:



    You have roughly 50 times the number of deaths due to "Malignant neoplasms", or cancer, and nearly 100 times the number of deaths due to Major Cardiovascular Disease, but I would bet AIDS gets more money than either of these. I'd appreciate if somebody looked that up.


    I don't think AIDS is getting more in absolute dollars, however I am convinced that whatever the dollars spent to total number of deaths ratio is, I think we know that AIDS gets a disproportionately much larger share than the diseases that are killing people in far greater numbers.

    There is a finite amount of money to spend on such matters. Spending more on AIDS is likely to reduce the amount that could be used for cancer research/prevention and the 14 other leading causes of death in the US. The net result could very possibly be more people dying. All the more of a tradegy since we already know AIDS is largely preventable by simply using a condom and not sharing needles.
    frank davis
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Feb 12, 2001
    Posts: 1479
    Originally posted by Jason Menard:
    Important note concerning AIDS and most of the other diseases mentioned here. AIDS is infectuous, and therefore a greater public health threat. As a health care provider, I'm not going to contract cancer if I get stuck with a needle used on a cancer patient, nor am I likely to contract diabetes if struck with a needle used on a diabetes patient. If however I get stuck with a needle used by a patient with AIDS, I'm screwed. If I'm exposed to AIDS tainted blood and I'm not aware of the exposure, then if I were to become infected, I might unknowingly pass it on to my wife and unborn children.

    Point being, anything infectuous is likely going to be seen as more of a general threat as well as receive the bulk of the attention and push for funding.


    A point well taken in general. Still, the infection spread rate in 2005 is so low in the scenarios you mention as to be a total non-issue. We all know AIDS is primarily spread through certain high risk activities.
    Steven Bell
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Dec 29, 2004
    Posts: 1071
    I just found some numbers on federal funding here.

    Here are a couple. (in millions of dollars)

    HIV/AIDS-----------------2,716
    Cardiovascular Research--2,286
    Cancer Research----------5,342 *(although I note a few other cancers on the list that amount to a few hundred more)

    These are the 2003 actuals, they also have '04 and '05 estimates
    Jason Menard
    Sheriff

    Joined: Nov 09, 2000
    Posts: 6450
    Originally posted by herb slocomb:
    We all know AIDS is primarily spread through certain high risk activities.


    Diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascular disease all quite often are the result of engaging in certain high risk activities.
    frank davis
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Feb 12, 2001
    Posts: 1479
    Originally posted by Jason Menard:


    Diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascular disease all quite often are the result of engaging in certain high risk activities.


    Diabetes? I think not. And I might add that diabetes contributes to cardiovascular disease deaths as well. One could argue that most cancers, or at least a very large percentage of cancers are a result of environemental pollutants no one has control over. Neither is most cardiovascular disease a result of eating at McDonalds or other "high risk" activity. This debate reached the level of the absurd a long time ago, too bad we're talking about human lives. I'll excuse myself now since I seldom find the preventable death of humans a topic to joke about.
    frank davis
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Feb 12, 2001
    Posts: 1479
    Originally posted by Max Habibi:


    I'm going to ignore the not-nice nature of your reply, and ask why you feel that my statement was lacking in candor. Are you suggesting that the statement is not true? Or are you suggesting that we not count Africa when considering the number of lives lost to AIDs?

    M


    Here's a cut and paste quote of mine from a prior post :


    "a) AIDS is not the leading cause of death in the US.
    b) AIDS is not the leading cause of death on planet Earth. "

    You then later stated that this was "not accurate". At this point both you and Jason are simply joking with me, right?
    [ January 27, 2005: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]
    frank davis
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Feb 12, 2001
    Posts: 1479
    Originally posted by Steven Bell:
    I just found some numbers on federal funding here.

    Here are a couple. (in millions of dollars)

    HIV/AIDS-----------------2,716
    Cardiovascular Research--2,286
    Cancer Research----------5,342 *(although I note a few other cancers on the list that amount to a few hundred more)

    These are the 2003 actuals, they also have '04 and '05 estimates


    AIDS gets more than heart disease? There needs to be a word that conveys a sense of surprise and sadness together. I never expected to see such causal acceptance of this by educated people.
    Max Habibi
    town drunk
    ( and author)
    Sheriff

    Joined: Jun 27, 2002
    Posts: 4118
    Originally posted by herb slocomb:


    Diabetes? I think not.


    You are mistaken. Obesity can lead to type II Diabetes. Type II Diabetes subsequently leads to heart disease and renal disease. Obesity is also a significant factor in the development of hypertension, cholelithiasis, polycystic ovarian disease, pseudotumor cerebri, heart disease, and as some research is now showing, breast cancer.

    M
    [ January 27, 2005: Message edited by: Max Habibi ]
    Steven Bell
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Dec 29, 2004
    Posts: 1071
    Originally posted by Max Habibi:


    Then you are mistaken. Obesity can lead to type II Diabetes.

    M


    type II Diabetes can be linked to obesity (and it is on the rise), but generally Diabetes is not.
    frank davis
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Feb 12, 2001
    Posts: 1479
    Originally posted by Max Habibi:


    You are mistaken.


    You really mean to say obesity is a "high risk activity"? You left out the context of my statement, but again, are you joking with me? First, its not an activity. Secondly, the activities that lead to obesity cannot be compared to unprotected homosexual anal sex. Eating is not inherently risky, unprotected homosexual anal sex is.

    [ January 27, 2005: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]
    [ January 27, 2005: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]
    Steven Bell
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Dec 29, 2004
    Posts: 1071
    Wouldn't obesity be a high risk inactivity?
    Max Habibi
    town drunk
    ( and author)
    Sheriff

    Joined: Jun 27, 2002
    Posts: 4118
    type II Diabetes can be linked to obesity (and it is on the rise),

    Type II Diabetes is linked to obesity, because obesity causes type II Diabetes. This relationship should not be understated.

    but generally Diabetes is not.

    I'm having some trouble understanding this. Which of the followng two statements are you making? That Type I Diabetes is not 'generally' related to obesity? Or that Type II Diabetes is not 'generally' related to obesity? And how, exactly, are you using the term 'generally'?
    [ January 27, 2005: Message edited by: Max Habibi ]
    Steven Bell
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Dec 29, 2004
    Posts: 1071
    When I said generally Diabetes is not, I was refering to type I (which I believe is still the more prominant type). By generally I basically meant to the best of my knowledge. I should have been more clear.
    frank davis
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Feb 12, 2001
    Posts: 1479
    Originally posted by Steven Bell:
    Wouldn't obesity be a high risk inactivity?


    Yes and there is an important point there as well. I believe there is a weaker moral case for allocating limited funds to fix problems people voluntarily brought upon themeslves. But its a sliding scale. Sky diving and unprotected anal sex with random strangers are on one end of the scale, living in a cave is on the other end. In between we have driving cars and overeating. Whether we call it "high risk" of course depends on a relative scale and how common it is. Driving is dangerous, yet we don't classify it as high risk together with sky diving. Same thing with overeating.

    But still this is a small side issue to the bigger one of the misallocation of limited public and private funds to help a disproportionately small number of AIDS victims while greater numbers of people die from other diseases.
    Max Habibi
    town drunk
    ( and author)
    Sheriff

    Joined: Jun 27, 2002
    Posts: 4118
    Originally posted by herb slocomb:


    Here's a cut and paste quote of mine from a prior post :


    "a) AIDS is not the leading cause of death in the US.
    b) AIDS is not the leading cause of death on planet Earth. "

    You then later stated that this was "not accurate". At this point both you and Jason are simply joking with me, right?

    [ January 27, 2005: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]


    Not at all. You stated the AIDs was not a leading cause for global death in any context, global or American. I've provided a global context( the epidemic death rate in Sub Saharan Africa), in which AIDs is a leading cause of global death.

    What part of this seems funny?
    Max Habibi
    town drunk
    ( and author)
    Sheriff

    Joined: Jun 27, 2002
    Posts: 4118
    Originally posted by herb slocomb:


    You really mean to say obesity is a "high risk activity"?


    I said exactly what I meant. High Risk activity, such as overeating, can lead to obesity, which can lead to Type II diabetes.

    Part of your argument seems to be that a disease which is preventable because it can be caused by 'high risk activity' is somehow less deserving of research. If this is, in fact, your argument, then it would imply that you feel similarly about the all diseases that can be caused by high risk activity. This is simple logical consistency, which all engineers should be are familiar with.

    M
    Max Habibi
    town drunk
    ( and author)
    Sheriff

    Joined: Jun 27, 2002
    Posts: 4118
    Originally posted by Steven Bell:
    When I said generally Diabetes is not, I was refering to type I (which I believe is still the more prominant type). By generally I basically meant to the best of my knowledge. I should have been more clear.


    Thanks for clarifying. However, not only is type II more prevalent, it's accelerating faster.
    Max Habibi
    town drunk
    ( and author)
    Sheriff

    Joined: Jun 27, 2002
    Posts: 4118
    Originally posted by herb slocomb:


    Yes and there is an important point there as well. I believe there is a weaker moral case for allocating limited funds to fix problems people voluntarily brought upon themeslves. But its a sliding scale. Sky diving and unprotected anal sex with random strangers are on one end of the scale, living in a cave is on the other end. In between we have driving cars and overeating.

    Herb, you seem to be fixated on unprotected anal sex . However, the fastest growing AIDs population, at least in America, is among heterosexual couples. Either other couples are in engaging in threads I'm not aware of, or you're digged into this anal sex thing too deeply. As it were.

    M
    frank davis
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Feb 12, 2001
    Posts: 1479
    Originally posted by Max Habibi:


    Not at all. You stated the AIDs was not a leading cause for global death in any context, global or American. I've provided a global context( the epidemic death rate in Sub Saharan Africa), in which AIDs is a leading cause of global death.



    A global context means global in scope. It doesn't mean that you are free to cherry pick a few countries anywhere on the globe to suit your case, or cities, or specifc streets in specific cities. Using Sub Saharan Africa as an example does not mean that AIDS is a leading cause of global death or even that its a real mortality issue at all for the majoirty of the world.
    I thought this would be clear : "In any context, US or global, AIDS is not the leading the cause of mortality." The phrase following "in any context" modifies the meaning of that phrase. Read all the parts of the sentence in context. There is a US context and global context, but not an African context, because Africa is not the globe or a majority of the globe.

    Knowing how people are sometimes, I later clarified myself to prevent wiggle room. * After * I made my clarification I was still plagued by apparently willfull misunderstanding. Such is life in MD...
    Max Habibi
    town drunk
    ( and author)
    Sheriff

    Joined: Jun 27, 2002
    Posts: 4118
    Herb,

    Previously, you may have been unclear. Now, you are mistaken. Africa is a part of the global community, and deaths in Africa are part of the moral landscape. As such, your statement was incorrect. That does not mean that all of your points are invalid, but those based on the premise that Africa is not a part of the global context are not, currently, supported.

    M
    frank davis
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Feb 12, 2001
    Posts: 1479
    Originally posted by Max Habibi:
    Originally posted by herb slocomb:
    [qb]

    Herb, you seem to be fixated on unprotected anal sex . However, the fastest growing AIDs population, at least in America, is among heterosexual couples. Either other couples are in engaging in threads I'm not aware of, or you're digged into this anal sex thing too deeply. As it were.

    M


    Humor and AIDS mix quite well with some I see. These hetero couples you mention are what percentage of all AIDS cases? And the HIV virus just spontaneously appeared in them, or did one of the partners engage in the unprotected anal sex? We've all been well educated by the AIDS lobby, we know the principal means of transmission. To make light of it or try to disguise it with misleading examples does no one any good.
    Alan Wanwierd
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Jun 30, 2004
    Posts: 624
    Originally posted by herb slocomb:
    ... These hetero couples you mention are what percentage of all AIDS cases? ...


    Even **if** (and its a big if) homosexual males are the largest demographic of HIV patients in USA, I'm sure that amongst Africa and SEAsia (Where HIV is far more prevalent) that the largest numbers would be amongst the heterosexual world spread mainly by unprotected heterosexual encounters. In Thailand for example I think I read that as many as 1 in 3 prostitutes in some areas have HIV - spreading the virus quite effectively among the hetrosexual community since condom use is still relatively rare (compared with the gay community). If we can accept this (and I'd be surprised if this wasnt the case) then surely we must accept that globaly, the vast majority of HIV/AIDS suffers are in fact NOT homosexual.
    [ January 27, 2005: Message edited by: Adrian Wallace ]
    frank davis
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Feb 12, 2001
    Posts: 1479
    Originally posted by Max Habibi:
    Herb,

    Previously, you may have been unclear. Now, you are mistaken. Africa is a part of the global community, and deaths in Africa are part of the moral landscape. As such, your statement was incorrect. That does not mean that all of your points are invalid, but those based on the premise that Africa is not a part of the global context are not, currently, supported.

    M



    OK, yet one more time, I never said Africa was not a part of the global context. Obviously it is, and so is San Francisco, and so is Tobago, and so is Mongolia. The point is that none of them, singularly or together, are THE global context. The global context is the globe as a whole, or as I stated several times already as clarification, "AIDS is not the leading cause of mortality on planet Earth."
    frank davis
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Feb 12, 2001
    Posts: 1479
    Originally posted by Adrian Wallace:


    If we can accept this (and I'd be surprised if this wasnt the case) then surely we must accept that globaly, the vast majority of HIV/AIDS suffers are in fact NOT homosexual.



    This is a small side issue, but Max mentioned heteros in America not globally, hence my response. In any event, the constant risk factor is unprotected sex with multiple partners.

    Isn't the bigger issue even simpler yet more important? Shouldn't it be public health policy to reduce death by disease? Isn't it obvious that in most cases you would target the leading causes of death in order to achieve that result? I know MD is the wrong forum, but I think I'm finally done venting
    [ January 27, 2005: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]
    Jason Menard
    Sheriff

    Joined: Nov 09, 2000
    Posts: 6450
    Originally posted by herb slocomb:
    Isn't it obvious that in most cases you would target the leading causes of death in order to achieve that result?


    No, you target the most infectuous causes in order to prevent an even larger public health problem. I have no doubt that early efforts on AIDS prevention are what has caused the spread of the disease to slow in this country. Had the public education not taken place to such a large scale when it did, it is very likely that the number of deaths in this country would be quite a bit higher. Therefore, any money spent on research and education in this country has been well spent, despite the fact that the disease statistically kills less than some other diseases in this country.
    frank davis
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Feb 12, 2001
    Posts: 1479
    Originally posted by Jason Menard:


    No, you target the most infectuous causes in order to prevent an even larger public health problem.



    Such blanket statements are not good policy to insure saving the most lives. It depends on rate of transmission and the numbers already infected. Does it make sense to "target" and divert scarce resources to prevent a tiny fraction of people dying while the infection is being spread very slowly? Those resources could have been used to save millions of more people over almost any given time span. Again it depends on a number of factors.

    In the case of AIDS the transmission rate to the general population was slower than almost any other infectious disease. Influenza and pneumonia always have killed more and continue to kill more today. They spread very fast and are very deadly. Yet they get a miniscule portion of resources compared to AIDS. Why? People are dying as a result. Whether infectious or not , the same calculations must be done with Heart Disease and Cancer. Their sheer numbers warrant that we simply can't go off targeting other diseases, infectous or not, without calculating the costs involved - the biggest cost would be human deaths...
    [ January 27, 2005: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]
    Max Habibi
    town drunk
    ( and author)
    Sheriff

    Joined: Jun 27, 2002
    Posts: 4118


    Humor and AIDS mix quite well with some I see.

    In the global context, yes.


    These hetero couples you mention are what percentage of all AIDS cases?


    Do you mean in the United States, or the entire world?

    And the HIV virus just spontaneously appeared in them, or did one of the partners engage in the unprotected anal sex?

    Herb, are you under the impression that AIDs can only be transmitted through unprotected anal sex?



    We've all been well educated by the AIDS lobby, we know the principal means of transmission.

    Herb, is it your contention that AIDs was inserted into the heterosexual community through unprotected anal sex? And if so, how does that theory merge with the observation that AIDs is accelerating among hetrosexual couples, who presumably do not have unprotected anal sex(at least, to the same degree that male homosexual couples do)? If UAS is the culprit, then wouldn't we see the acceleration among gay male couples instead? There seems to be fairly large contradiction between your theory and observed fact.

    M
    [ January 27, 2005: Message edited by: Max Habibi ]
    Max Habibi
    town drunk
    ( and author)
    Sheriff

    Joined: Jun 27, 2002
    Posts: 4118


    This is a small side issue, but Max mentioned heteros in America not globally, hence my response.

    I don't agree that the number global deaths caused by AIDs is a small side issue. I content that it speaks to the heart of the problem, and makes a strong case for stronger AIDs funding: AIDs is not a gay problem, it's a problem for all of humanity.


    In any event, the constant risk factor is unprotected sex with multiple partners.

    Isn't the bigger issue even simpler yet more important? Shouldn't it be public health policy to reduce death by disease? Isn't it obvious that in most cases you would target the leading causes of death in order to achieve that result? I know MD is the wrong forum, but I think I'm finally done venting

    [ January 27, 2005: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]

    I don't believe so. AIDs was identified in early 1981, and it already being compared to diseases which have been with humanity since the dawn of civilization. As Jason stated, I think that awareness, education, and research have saved many lives over the last 20+ years. This isn't the time to stop fighting: it's the time to concentrate on winning.

    M
     
    I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
     
    subject: Call for Global Taxation
     
    Similar Threads
    Is there another crash round the corner
    All about the OIL!!!!!
    Morality: relative or absolute?
    Dmitry Sklyarov???
    Teflon, take 2