That link uses manipulation to play with stats.
Highest HIV per capita puts smaller places at the top of the list.
Versus the more helpful total aggregate of cases in different cities.
example: per capita. 20 people in my little town, if there were 2 cases of HIV it would be 10% and a very high per capita rate.
Also noted it clumped certain areas together to give smaller communities a higher hit.
I understood that, and I don’t think it’s manipulation in a devious vein. It is, as we all should be concerned, a matter of pure numbers when it comes to concurrent diseases representative of a lifestyle.
Regardless of per capita or total cases, this “award” is nothing to be proud about.