Posted on 08/13/2006 2:11:46 PM PDT by neverdem
Activists Blame Infection Rate, Unchanged Since 1990, on Policies and Funding
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.
AIDS was first recognized in June 1981. Incidence of the disease -- the number of new cases in a period, generally a year -- peaked at 160,000 in the mid-1980s. With intensive effort to reduce risky behavior in gay men and, to a lesser extent...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Paging Mr. BROWN, do you really know the answer?
Lots of needle users and homosexuals who are active I would think.
Because it wasn't treated like every other cumminicable disease and the people with it taken out of the general population in order to get a handle on it?
Well, I for one know how to prevent the spread of HIV...either no sex or use protection...tada! Simple enough...
Making the government a scapegoat because you picked up a disease from having unprotected sex...is well, stupid.
Isolation of infected individuals from the rest of society.
2 reasons:
1) As soon as someone says "You shouldn't..." to a gay man, the charge of HOMOPHOBIA!! comes screeching out.
2) Drug addiction is a disease, we can expect these poor addicts to be responsible for either safe practices or heaven forbid (as in the above case) abstaining from their risky behavior, that might hurt their self esteem.
How about behavior modification? Would that work?
Plus, unlike other sexually transmitted diseases, it gets a pass due to PC
AIDS is 99.9% preventable/avoidable. And AIDS is not spread by insufficient funding.
The problem with the latest HIV drugs is that it keeps a contagious host of the virus alive. That's a good thing if it's someone who was accidentally infected (doctor, nurse, etc.) and who won't be spreading it around to others. It's a bad thing if it's being used to keep people alive who are careless and/or are intentionally spreading it.
I'll be the first. I blame Bush.
/sarc
I agree BUT we may have to define marriage to the PC crowd.
From the article: What would it take to lower the infection rate?
**
Gee, how about people not CHOOSING to have perverted sexual relations or not CHOOSING to inject illegal drugs? Wouldn't cost a dime. It's called "personal responsibility", a term foreign to the liberal vocabulary.
Actually, if only more gay guys liked Bush......
I'll be the first. I blame Bush.
***
And don't forget to throw in Israel.
Right, Hepatitis becomes PC with Aids as well.
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.