Posted on 05/03/2006 12:08:36 PM PDT by siunevada
Sure.
So in just one year, there is a FORTY PERCENT CHANCE (.99^100) that the HIV+ person will expose their spouse to AIDS. And that's with 99% effectiveness for the condom, there is a 99.99% chance that the spouse will become exposed to AIDS.
First is the difference between being exposed and being infected. HIV (fortunately for the spouses involved) is not as infective as some viruses, such as hepatitis B. Exposure doesn't always result in transmission even with Hep B, and transmission is much less with AIDS. On a quick search, I found this abstract from the well-regarded Cochrane database comparing those who said they "always used condoms" and those who "never used condoms":
"There were 13 cohorts of "always" users that yielded an homogeneous HIV incidence estimate of 1.14 [95% C.I.:.56, 2.04] per 100 person-years. There were 10 cohorts of "never" users that appeared to be heterogeneous. The studies with the longest follow-up time, consisting mainly of studies of partners of hemophiliac and transfusion patients, yielded an HIV incidence estimate of 5.75 [95% C.I.: 3.16, 9.66] per 100 person-years." (emphasis added).
Because, "I'm a doctor" won't do.
I suggest you take a refresher course on what God teaches us about humility. You might consider foregoing your "preaching" as part of the course.
Your comments were pompous, arrogant and self-righteous. Shame on you!
Aside from statistics and the "lesser of two evils" theologians may be contemplating, what sensible person would risk having sex with a spouse who has AIDS or is HIV positive? For me, it is just that simple.
>> If the choice is between using a condom or abstaining, the latter is the safest choice. On the other hand, if the choice is between using a condom or not using a condom, the former is the safest choice. <<
actually, that's the point: read post #32: there is no significant difference between wearing a condom or not, when having sex monogamously with regular marital frequency (well, if things are going well). .99^500=~0.
OOPS, I mean post 31
Some women have no choice.
There. I made the necessary correction.
actually, that's the point: read post #32: there is no significant difference between wearing a condom or not, when having sex monogamously with regular marital frequency (well, if things are going well). .99^500=~0.
Studies have found a difference. I think you are equating exposure with infection, which isn't what happens. Check out the source linked from post #41. To add another statistic, this study from rural Uganda of couples with either wife or husband infected, and no mention of condom use, has infection rates of 11.6 to 16 per 100 person years. Compare that to the "always use condoms" group in my previous post, with a rate of 1.14 per 100 person years.
If the choice is between using a condom or abstaining, the latter is the safest choice. On the other hand, if the choice is between using a condom or not using a condom, the former is the safest choice.
I don't disagree with your statement.
Of course, in the second instance we are playing the percentages. The medical profession does that all the time. They will recommend a course of treatment based on the probability of success. The greatest good for the population as a whole, knowing that some individuals will fall outside of the group that has successful results.
If the Vatican is looking at it from a different perspective of morals and ethics, I am guessing they would say for the indivdual who happens to be statistically unlucky and has the device fail on the first incident of use, in practical terms the device did not offer any protection. They are infected with a potentially fatal disease. For that individual, there is no "lesser evil". It appeared to be an alternative, in fact, it wasn't.
And, given enough incidents of use, the device will eventually fail for all individual users. From the moral/ethical perspective, I doubt the Vatican is going to say 'pretty close' to 100% protection is good enough and the devil take the hindmost.
Although not a recommended hobby, if one insists on playing "Russian Roulette" chances of survival are dramatically increased if one uses a revolver rather than an automatic.
If one spins the barrel often enough the end result is the same. The gun goes boom. Result delayed, not prevented.
For the statistically unlucky individual, there is no delay and the revolver is the same as the automatic.
>> Some women have no choice. <<
Rapists use condoms because the Vatican told them it was a sin not to???
No, I am not mixing exposure with infection. I plainly spoke only of exposure, since that is the only factor we know condom use can effect. However, I will note that I did mention one factor which causes monogamy to promote contracting the virus, and did leave out a very important factor which make promiscuity lead to catching the virus more easily: co-inciding infections. The presence of many sexually transmitted diseases make transmission of the virus into the bloodstream much easier, such as open Herpes sores. And other sexually transmitted diseases make HIV transmission more likely to result in symptomatic AIDS, presumably by impairing the immune system.
However, that does cast a different light on the statistics. I agree that at some point in a long monogamous relationship the non HIV partner will be exposed, but given that infectivity isn't that high, (estimated between 0.005 and 0.009 for male-to-female transmission, and 0.003 and 0.001 for female-to-male transmission for a single instance of unprotected intercourse) cutting down the number of exposures makes a big difference. Which means that a condom, properly used, can prevent infection for a significant number of people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.