Alexander Tabarrok wrote:
>... Furthermore as Robin pointed out
>there was "a claimed strong correlation between where CHAT was given and
>the earliest HIV cases. But this correlation is only described via some
>maps. This cries out for a more formal statistical analysis..."
>According to the Economist (Sept. 16, 2000) a "closer analysis" (don't
>know if this is the same as Robin's formal analysis) suggests that the
>correlation is spurious.
Yes, I saw that and was curious to know whether the analysis critical
is any better than Hooper's analysis. The article did grant that there
remains the strange puzzle of the coincidence in timing of the various
strands of AIDS all being transmitted from primates to humans within a
close period, which I suppose that Hooper will emphasize when backed
into a corner. The article suggests theories of population increases
or the introduction of cheap syringes, both of which might explain why
infection didn't happen earlier. But I'm not sure they can explain why
we haven't seen more such transmissions since then.
Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu
Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
