WP: Why the U.S. Has Not Stemmed HIV

[DeepModem Mom]

Why the U.S. Has Not Stemmed HIV
Activists Blame Infection Rate, Unchanged Since 1990, on Policies and Funding
By David Brown
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 13, 2006; Page A07

The number of people in poor countries taking AIDS drugs -- about 1.4 million -- rises by tens of thousands every week. The spread of AIDS in Africa seems to have peaked. Three countries there -- Uganda, Kenya and Zimbabwe -- report declining HIV prevalence, largely thanks to changes in people's behavior. Even in India, considered AIDS's ticking time bomb, efforts to defuse the epidemic are paying off in some places.

Amid these optimistic trends from around the world, however, is another statistic that is stuck in time, right here at home.

The number of new HIV infections in the United States has been about 40,000 a year for the past decade and a half. It has not budged -- not with new drugs, new prevention strategies or new administrations. Five years ago, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention launched an effort to cut it in half. It did not move.

The intransigence of the AIDS epidemic in the place where it emerged -- and where many of the strategies against it have been developed -- will be on the minds of many this week as 20,000 people gather in Toronto for the 16th International AIDS Conference.

There is little question that, for public health experts and AIDS activists, the fact that the HIV infection rate has not changed since 1990 is an embarrassment. At the same time, it is a testament to a victory -- albeit one that happened long ago....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/12/AR2006081200788.html

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. Perhaps not enough protected sex is happening.

Like the article said, it's going down in Uganda, Kenya and Zimbabwe because of a change in people's behavior.

I think the government is responsible for trying to find ways to treat it, and cure people; but it certainly isn't responsible for the infection rate.

[AngryAmish]

6. Please compare the US rate to those of African countries

Our rate (especially death rate) is wayyyy lower. HIV transmission vectors are well known. But changing behavior of irresponsible people is difficult.

The rate is stable 9not going down) because we are dealing with people.

[pitohui]

13. maybe but let me say this

would you be willing to go your whole life, having only protected sex, i certainly wouldn't

there is point below which the rate cannot fall, because it is unreasonable to tell people to go forever without experiencing the simple human freedom not to have a piece of latex between you and your partner -- we older people have known the real thing, and there is a difference -- fumbling with rubbers, anxiety abt broken rubbers etc. does have an effect on the quality of the experience and not a positive one

i will not be satisfied until there is a vaccine, the act of lovemaking should not be allowed to be spoiled forever


life is risk, and it is not necessarily irresponsible to take some risks, it's one life to a customer, don't spend it hiding under the mattress

[Rabrrrrrr]

15. No, I wouldn't be willing to do that - but I am willing to spend my life

with one partner at a time.

Granted, accidents can still happen through unfaithful partners finding infections elsewhere, but in all things we have to ask "What is a fair expectation of our government?" If the government puts out a mandate that motorcyle riders have to wear a helmet, is it the government's fault if someone doesn't wear one? Or is it the fault of the motorcycle rider? If someone sticks his hand in the blender and chews it up, is it the government's responsibility, or the person's?

There are so many other diseases out there that kill far more people than AIDS; and that are nowhere near as easily and utterly preventable as AIDS.

I would prefer that we spend our resources combatting those diseases.

But, since it's a sexual disease, and since it's perfectly acceptable to tell people "Don't do that!" for any activity except stuff involving their genitals, we will continue to concentrate on it, while millions of people die of easily and cheaply preventable malaria every year; millions of people suffer from easily preventable debilitating and deforming diseases every year; and millions of people suffer from easily preventable life-threatening diseases every year.

Granted, we should continue to work on something; but I still don't see this as a priority.

[pitohui]

16. so it isn't a priority because it don't affect you

because you are a perfect judge of character and have a perfect ability to control the behavior of others and when you decide that, by god, you are going to spend your life with one person, then you have complete control and can guarantee that your partner is going to comply

okay, fine, but i'm pretty sure that the h in hiv stands for "human"

if i was a god w. perfect knowledge and perfect ability to control my partner's actions then i guess i would feel the same way

as i'm human and i'm aware that if there is one thing that humans do better than anything else, it's screw up, then i have a different attitude

the person who thinks that it ain't their problem because their spouse took a test in 1993 and they've been married ever since, is living in a dream world really, but whatever

[Rabrrrrrr]

17. Wow. Thanks for completely misreading my post!

Nice strawman.

Good to see you back in form.

[pitohui]

19. you said "I still don't see this as a priority."

hard to mis-read that, it's your own words

[Rabrrrrrr]

20. I did say that quote, yes; but the slanderous reasons were all your own.

But, I don't want to hijack or risk getting locked a legitimate thread with a stupid flamewar, so I'm out of this discussion.

[closeupready]

21. I presume you're heterosexual (or bisexual but practicing heterosexual).

is that correct?

[Rabrrrrrr]

22. Why do you need to assume that?

:shrug:

[closeupready]

24. Easy guess

You suggested (for whatever reason) that AIDS should not be the priority with respect to public health issues. Only someone who has not lost a loved one or who knows someone who is ill could suggest something like that in such a callous way, rather than saying, for example, we need to expand the pie and give a bit more to cancer research (or heart disease research or whatever).

No offense, but that's how I read your posts above.

[Rabrrrrrr]

26. LOL!

Yeah, I've never lost a friend or a family member to AIDS. I'll let them know they all died of, um, infection. Or something. Thanks for that assumption, and for deciding emotions for me.

And what does not having friends or family who died of AIDS have to do with being straight? You do realize that lots of straight people have HIV and AIDS, right? Or do you want to perpetuate the myth that it's a gay-only disease?

[closeupready]

27. How can you suggest "I still don't see [AIDS] as a priority"?

I'm glad that I could bring a smile to someone's face this morning, I just wish it hadn't been a topic as somber as this one.

And by the way, how much do you actually do to help fight those other diseases?

[heliarc]

28. Wow...

You two are not even listening to one another. Can I press the reset button on this conversation please???

[Rabrrrrrr]

29. Because in the list of things that need to be done, I see other things

as having a higher priority. Things that could be solved and fixed quite quickly, and save millions of lives quickly, which would then help move HIV/AIDS up the priority scale to the top so it can be dealt with.

And I do about as much fighting for those other diseases as you probably do fighting for better working conditions for migrant workers, or what you do for fighting for greater access to mental health care for teenagers, or improving aquatic safety on container ships.

Since I'm not a theoretical bioligist/geneticist, nor a doctor with the authority or intelligence to prescribe medicine, I guess the answer is "Nil".

[Stuckinthebush]

30. University of Alabama - Birmingham is working hard on vaccines

They are one of the leaders in the field and have been experimenting with some promising things. The test trials take time, but there are a number of scientist going all out on a vaccine.

Let's hope sooner rather than later!

[NC_Nurse]

2. Because the US doesn't care about people who don't fit

the "desirable" category of citizens so they underfund the prevention programs. Gays, IV drug users, minorities all get the shaft in funding and the people in power could give a shit.
Also, we have the strangest sex-obsessed-yet-prudish cultural circus on earth. Constant bombardment with sex on TV, in ads, movies, mags, etc. but a big discomfort with sex ed and STD prevention programs.
It's not a mystery at all. It's America, simultaneously in the 21st and 15th centuries. :crazy:

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Agreed except I believe it's antagonism and contempt rather than

apathy on the part of this Administration. They want "undesirables" to die off.

[Sinti]

4. What you guys said. No question about it. n/t

[bleedingheart]

7. it also highlights their shortsightedness...

because almost every family has a member who has those "less than desirable characteristics"...there isn't a family I know of that doesn't have a family member that is promiscuous (doesn't matter whether gay or not), or who has a drug problem.

You can have an upstanding church lady married to a fellow who has been hiding his homosexuality and who infects his wife and she in turn may infect a child via breast milk.

You also have men married to women who have multiple partners...some of them drug addicts...and he too becomes HIV positive..

the types of scenarios that exist can go on forever...and sadly when we ignore AIDS....we condemn all of us.

and you are correct...we are prudish in the worst ways and yet the people of this nation have such a thirst for sex that it just pours out of the airwaves and from the TV...

[Solo_in_MD]

10. What else should they be doing to lower the infection rate

AIDS awareness is pretty high. The vectors are well understood. What else could the government be reasonably doing? It is after all private behavior that is the basic problem here.

The article did not convience me that what was being advocated would help, with the possible exception of needle exchange

[sandnsea]

11. Ninth Grade Health Class

Which the vast majority of Americans have taken since 1990. They all teach about HIV, laytex condoms and needles. I can't imagine that you could find a single adult who doesn't know condoms and clean needles prevent HIV. This isn't an education issue anymore. Some people are just going to ignore safety precautions the same way some people ignore putting on a motorcycle helmet or driving after drinking. It's just some people's nature and I don't think we'll ever have 100% compliance on HIV safety. I would rather put the money into drug prevention, HIV medication and quality of life at this point, not more education.

[acmejack]

5. Could there be a more validating statistic for abstinence?

If we had anything resembling real sex education in this Country, we could replicate the success enjoyed on the African Continent. But here in America, locked in the embrace of the Christian Right, we must continue to operate as a semi-puritanical Country until we can restore sanity by purging the Southern Baptists from the halls of Government and returning them to their mega-churches and TV shows. This experiment of allowing Church to mingle with State has to be considered an abject failure and we must motivate the voters to resoundingly repudiate it at the polls in November.

[sandnsea]

12. Some African countries teach abstinence

That's a huge part of my personal antagonism with the Catholic Church, they don't teach condoms in Africa which I find a crime against humanity. But if the countries in the article are where abstinence is being pushed, maybe we need to take a second look at the behavioral part of our own sex education classes. Fewer partners would eventually mean fewer diseases, it would seem to me.

[pitohui]

14. what good is abstinence when person wants unprotected sex is yr husband?

i don't believe there is one poster here who is a heterosexual married female who can say straight-faced that she practices safe sex

and yet married spouses stray, every day, we know that, but there's no point worrying abt it because you can't both be married and insist on constant use of rubbers and stay married

abstinence is fine if you're 13, but you cannot have a marriage or an adult relationship and be abstinent, it's cutting off your participation in the human race

shoot me now, what is the point of preserving a life where you never take a chance?

some will take the chance and lose, that doesn't make them bad people, it doesn't make them irresponsible people (since they are doing what is required of every married woman really)

it just makes them unlucky

i won't blame someone for being unlucky

[pinto]

8. Good article. Thanks for passing it on.

[jaysunb]

9. I thought they were just " thinning the herd "

:evilfrown:

[SoCalDem]

18. Beause the powers-that-be, long ago determined that AIDS

is a bahaviorly contracted disease, and is somehow God's punishment for living an evil life.. Children with AIDS are just darned unlucky. I am convinced in my little cynical heart, that the right wingers who have controlled everything for the last 26 years ( even during Clinton's 8 years, can we really say he was ever "in control" over a rightwing-leaning congress and a rightwing media)...

These hyper-religious folks truly believe in retribution and punishment.. They have little true compassion for anyone except those inside their own inner circles.

They are probably disappointed that Africa is taking so darned long to de-populate.. There are minerals & goodies there that would be easy pickins once the middle agers are all dead and gone... The very young will never be able to raise themselves and will probably succumb to nasty infighting and more AIDS infections...

Does anyone really believe that george & his pals give one crap about the health issues of poor Africans?? or poor Americans?

[noonwitch]

23. Because people are too promiscuous

I'm not big on "abstinence-only" education.
Condoms are useful in fighting HIV/AIDS only if people use them properly. They are not 100% effective, though, and people need to understand that, whether we are talking about preventing disease or pregnancy.

I am continually amazed at how promiscuous so many people are, male and female, hetero or gay. When I was in college, I had roommates who would have 3 different partners a week. I am not kidding here. I have coworkers who find men online and will have sex with them the first time they meet. In the first case, there wasn't much protection involved as usually consuming large amounts of alcohol was involved, also. In the second, they probably are using condoms, but it still show a lack of self-respect, imo.

Prostitution is also a major way HIV gets spread around. A married guy crusies Woodward AVE in Detroit, gets whatever and gives it to his wife. If his wife then gets pregnant, he's also given it to his kid.

People see sex only as pleasure and don't accept the responsibilities that are involved if you truly respect yourself and your partner. Monogamous relationships are what will help prevent STDs-I don't necessarily mean only sex in marriage, but couples should have exclusive commitments to each other as long as that relationship lasts.

[Rabrrrrrr]

25. I think you're right.

I'd love to have the kind of life of multiple sexual partners each week, or even a few a month. But, I decided way back in high school (when AIDS was first appearing on the scence) that it was too dangerous an option because of ALL of the STDs and also risk of pregnancy. I still think it is. Which is why I don't do casual sex.

A very wise teenager once said, when I was leading a class (as an adult) on sexuality for teenagers, when asked, "When do you know you're ready for sex?" and he answered "When you are mature enough to know that you have the emotional and financial ability to raise a child". Of course, that's a hetero-centric view, but he's right, and one could easily say "When you are mature enough to know that you have the emotional and financial ability to raise an STD".

God, I sound so Puritan. I'm not, though. Promiscuity doesn't bother me, unmarried sex dfoesn't bother me; but I do want people to do these things fully aware of the risks at hand, and not ask the government or society or whatever to save them when they hit the bad-outcome lotto NOR to make the world safer for them to begin with.

I've had friends who died from AIDS, and it was ugly and dehumanizing in so many ways. I'd love to get rid of it forever - and, truthfully, get rid of all STDs forever. I find it a shame that we CAN'T all enjoy sex with each other willy nilly. I think we'd have a most wondrous and amazing world if we were that open. But, I do think there are other, more deadly things that we could focus our resources on.

Of course, we cut our military budget to 10% of what it is, we could probably cure everything AND start a colony on Mars inside of ten years.