In fact, deluding uninfected people who are otherwise chaste or monogamous into thinking condoms make for "safe sex" merely moves them from a protected group into a group that will ultimately be overrun by the exponential process
that is a minority population. those that are chaste or monogamous from fear of aids that would have sex if they thought a condom would keep them safe is negligible. those using condoms, and breaking them, because they were never taught how to use them, is a larger group. On Apr 6, 2005 11:30 AM, leaking pen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > actually, a ruptured condom will almost never lead to the aids > infection of a male (penetrating). the member is still rather > protected from fluid. its the other way that infection will go. even > so, infection rates for aids are around one in 25 encounters for male > to female, one in 40 female to male (both rates increased for anal > sex) and about one in 20 to reciever, one in 30 to giver for anal sex > (male male or male female) > and no one, i mean NO ONE says that condoms are 100 percent effective. > thats a strawman arguement. they are told that it slows down the > spread. and slowing the spread of a geometrically increasing factor > slows it, geometrically. more widespread use of condoms would drop > aids infections by 80 percent or more. its immoral to tell them NOT > to use condoms. > > On Apr 6, 2005 11:12 AM, Horace Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 10:10 AM 4/6/5, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > >I assume that the term "95% effective" means that 5% > > >fail mechanically. > > [snip] > > >If everyone in a society uses condoms, the spread of AIDS will be > > >stopped instantly, and eventually the disease will go extinct because I do > > >not think it survives outside the human body. > > > > I've read anecdotal evidence some virus spilled on a lab bench top and was > > left for several days and was subsequently cultured. I don't know how much > > research has actually been done on this, or how important it is. It > > doesn't offhand strike me as an important issue with regard to infection > > rate. > > > > > > At 8:55 AM 4/6/5, leaking pen wrote: > > >thanks jed, beat me to it. but yes, acutally, there was a study done > > >that showed that about 5 percent of condoms used correctly failed > > >mechanically, usually as a result of being past the expiration date (a > > >higher problem in the third world). ill have to hunt down the study. > > >and theres a higher failure rate for improper use, which is more users > > >than youd think. > > > > The above information is roughly consistent with what I remember reading, > > but it has been a while and I can't count much on my memory. You both seem > > to roughly agree though. > > > > If there is indeed an overall average mechanical failure rate of 5 percent, > > then suggesting the use of condoms will stop aids is utterly erroneous and > > immoral. A male with aids who has a typical sexual encounter rate of about > > a couple times a week, and even uses a condom every time, will experience > > about five failures a year. That's five occasions of unprotected sex. The > > only thing condom use does, even if everyone uses them all the time, is > > slow down the rate of infections per encounter. The overall process, the > > annual infection rate, is still exponential, so the same number of people > > will ultimately get the disease unless a cure is found, it will just take a > > bit longer. That is the nature of exponential processes. > > > > Now that the lives of the infected are extended by medication, I would > > expect the total annual infection cases should now be increasing in places > > where such medication is available, unless a monogamous behavior increase > > has offset that effect. Even if you get everbody to use condoms this > > condom use then drops the infections per infected male to 1/20 the > > unprotected rate, but if the infected live 10 years instead of 2 the total > > infections per infected individual drops to only 1/4 the rate of a > > population that is fully unprotected, instead of the expected 1/20. > > > > Since the annual infection rate remains exponential with or without > > condoms, the final outcome remains the same unless a cure is found early > > on. Condoms therefore are not a solution. In fact, deluding uninfected > > people who are otherwise chaste or monogamous into thinking condoms make > > for "safe sex" merely moves them from a protected group into a group that > > will ultimately be overrun by the exponential process. Using the term > > "safe sex" as synonymous with condom use is therefore deadly in the > > extreme. > > > > It does not seem to me that religious beliefs and moral stances should > > cloud this issue, which is purely a quantitative one. Either these > > assertions are facts or not. It is important to society as a whole, and to > > all individuals at risk, to know if touting condom use as safe sex leads to > > more deaths from aids. > > > > Regards, > > > > Horace Heffner > > > > > > -- > "Monsieur l'abb�, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to > make it possible for you to continue to write" Voltaire > -- "Monsieur l'abb�, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write" Voltaire
