At 8:23 AM 4/8/5, leaking pen wrote: >your math assumes that all encounters are with someone who is hiv positive.
Not true. I made no assumptions that the sample data was valid or in what context they would be valid. However, if it will make you happy I will now suggest that a 1/1000 infection rate is not an unrealistic number in a high incidence group, like some of those in Africa for example. However, at this point we do not even have available the probability of condum failure in common modalities, so it is not possible to make any serious calculations. The incidence of aids worldwide is increasing. We do know that. The notion of "safe sex" is nonsense, and it is more that way as time goes on and the inevitable happens, assuming no miracle of modern medicine. I would also point out from a practical standpoint that some people might be interested in being able to figure out how long they could expect to be aids free if a long term partner they choose happens to have aids. At 10:11 AM 4/8/5, leaking pen wrote: >id like to clarify. i spent several days researching this issue about >a year ago for a similar discussion. the numbers i quote are >recollections. > >heres another for you, btw. teens who were in abstinence based sex >education programs were shown to have a HIGHER rate of sex, and a >higher rate of unprotected sex. >THAT, my friends, is the immoral side of the issue. thinking that you >can simply tell people not to, and have them not to, without telling >them how to protect themselves, now THATS dangerous and naive. I've said nothing about telling people what to do, nor have I said anything about not teaching people how to use condoms. People make their own choices anyway based on information provided. What I *am* saying is that the information provided should not be misleading. The implication that the use of condoms is "safe" is irresponsible, and is increasingly so as the disease progresses. It would be interesting to know why abstinence based sex education programs have a higher rate of sex, and if that sex occured in long term monogomous relations. >Horace Heffner wrote: > >>I take it then that no one here actually knows the failure rate of condoms >>with regard to protection from aids. > >No one here does, but people elsewhere do. I have some friends at the CDC >who could tell you all about it. > > >>Yet there are such fervent beliefs expressed regarding promoting condom >>use as "safe sex". I can not see why this posture is not utterly reckless. > >This conclusion is based on extensive, careful fieldwork by experts. You >should not try to second-guess these experts judging by a few idle comments >by non-experts at this forum. You seem to have no qualms about second guessing experts, in fusion for example. 8^) I'm making no second guesses. I'm simply pointing out some mathematical facts and the consequences they imply based on given assumptions. This requires no expertise. You on the other hand, in response to a request for information, have provided guesses or assumptions and a seemingly boundless quantity of diatribe to go with them. It is perfectly logical that condom use will slow the spread of aids. It does not take an expert to see that. Further, the more the onslaught is delayed, the larger the number of people who will be saved by medical advances if and when they come. However, it is not necessarily so that condom use will stop aids from infecting the majority of people who are at risk however. It seems to me the general population in the USA has a distorted picture of aids at this time, not yet being anywhere near the point of inflection of the S shaped curve. The principle conclusion I've drawn is that no action should be taken, especially a misleading action, which draws people out of safe populations and into populations at risk. This conclusion to me is self-evident and requires no special expertise. Regards, Horace Heffner
