Talk:Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Misleading caption

"Graphs of life expectancy at birth for some sub-Saharan countries showing the fall in the 1990s primarily due to the AIDS pandemic." Following the link, there's no indication that the cause for the drastic life drop in life expectancy is "primarily due to the AIDS pandemic." Given that intense famines preceded the drop I would expect this statement to be more carefully substantiated. Or at least, substantiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.27.92 (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Fuzzy Math

Something is wrong with the numbers in this article. At the start of the section on sub-Saharan Africa it says "sub-Saharan Africa.. is home to just over 10% of the world’s population but more than 99% of all people living with HIV," whereas the UNAIDS 2007 table in the previous section shows that this area is home to about 2/3 of HIV carriers. The section on sub-Saharan africa also claims that 92% of people in Botswana and Swaziland have HIV, which sounds ludicrous and is much higher than the percentages given the the articles on those countries. In the second-to-last sentence of the same paragraph: "Several countries reportedly have prevalence rates around 10 to 13%, and no country has rates above 10%."... how can no country have rates above 10% while several countries have rates "around 10 to 13%"? Sounds cobbled together from two different, conflicting sources.

--Charleyc (talk) 04:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Pandas?

Claims are made in the beginning of the article that the pandemic originated from pandas. Is this a stupid pun, or is it actually true?

88.90.232.226 (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It's vandalism. AIDs is generally believed by scientists to have come from Chimpanzees in Africa. If you follow the 'citation' for the panda thing, it's actually about chimpanzees. Its origins are certainly African. There's no argument at all for it originating in Asia, especially when they were one of the last to get the pandemic. Ill change the line accordingly 86.2.38.112 (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

transmission mode of HIV

1. This article goes into depth about the crisis in Africa but not much else. Here is a question: If the only way that people outside of Africa and Western Europe get AIDS is through "intravaneous drug use, paid sex and male-male homosexual contact" Why do ANY children have it?!! Obviously heterosexual transmission is a factor here. This article is so imbalanced it's not funny. There are a lot of steroeotypes evident here. you guyz are gay

And to the person who wrote the comment below this one...is the US not a developed country? AIDS is just as prevalent in heterosexual communities as homosexual communities.

2. Must get terminology right here...HIV causes AIDS so that question is what is the main mechanism of transmission of HIV between individuals. THe answer is that it depends...in developed countries it is mainly confined to populations engaging in male to male sex and injecting drug use, though the latter is a more common mechanism of transmission in the USA than in Europe. In South East Asia and Central and Eastern Europe it is concentrated among MSM, IDU and sex worker populations though this usually enters the general population though interaction with these groups. Infection through blood transfusion still does occur for example in Eastern China an estimated 500 000 people were infected by blood products in the early part of this century. So provide an accurate assessment of the mechanism of transmission really have to go country by country, region by region....and of course transmission is modified by health policy

Effect of policy on transmission

I think we need to emphasize that the transmission of HIV is governed by local and national policies. For example Thailand and Cambodia have been able to reduce transmission as a result of increased condom use particularly among sex workers, Australia prevented HIV spreading among injecting drug users by introducing comprehensive harm reduction programs. Those countries which prohibit or don't facilitate condom availability or the availability of clean injecting equipment tend to experience increase rates of HIV particularly among high risk populations.

HIV+ rate, South Africa

Someone had this at 21.5% of the population. I revised this sharply downward to 12.4%. If you'd like to check my math (and I suggest you do): SA's population is reported to be 44.2 million (CIA World Factbook. UNAIDS estimates that 5.5 million people (children and adults over 15) are living with HIV. 5.5 million is 12.4% of 44.2 million.

The UNAIDS 2005 report is out, so maybe some brave person (maybe even me, if I have time) would like to similarly revise all of the numbers cited in the article. --Birdmessenger 22:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Splitting

I have now split off the regional subsections into their own regional sub-articles, so that this article can now be made shorter, and the specialist regional sections, now each in their own article, can be expanded further. -- The Anome 00:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this right?

"Sub-Saharan Africa remains by far the worst-affected region, with 23.8 million to 28.9 million people living with HIV at the end of 2005" 23.8 to 28.9 million? there is a very large difference here. is it supposed to be 28.8 to 28.9? or is it really such a large uncertainty?

Methamphetamine

Not everyone is familiar with the drug, so I think it is important to mention that methamphetamine is generally not used as an intravenous (injected) drug, and is not a route by which HIV is transmitted.

HIV/AIDS in Canada

Why is there no info in the HIV/AIDS in North America section about HIV/AIDS in Canada?

No kidding! It looks like Canada got left out. Lot 49atalk 22:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/diseases-conditions/summary-estimates-hiv-incidence-prevalence-canadas-progress-90-90-90.html 𝔏92934923525 (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Dirie keeps making false statements

I've contacted Dirie about AIDS and it's origin, and he still keeps changing that it originated from either China or Asia.



Mustafus 02:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

How is aids spread?

We really need a subsection about this in every location —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jftsang (talk • contribs) 10:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Answer: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/transmission.html 𝔏92934923525 (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Maps are in conflict with each other

The second map shows the total number of HIV infected people in Russia as 500,000 to 1,000,000.

Based on Russia's population of 142,754,000 this means between 0.35% and 0.7% of the population is infected.

But the first map says that 1% to 5% of the population is infected.

Stupid mistakes like this is why Wikipedia is not and will never be taken seriously as a source of information.

The second map is the correct one if anyone cares. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.169.227.74 (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Began updating the figures.

Much of the data in this article was based on the inaccurate 2005 figures. These have been heavily revised downward with the 2007 UNAIDS and WHO report that recently came out. I've updated the table and intro, but the article itself repeats many of these numbers. There's still a lot of work needed to bring this whole article up to date with the more accurate recent numbers. Here's the report if anyone wants to help out here. http://data.unaids.org/pub/EPISlides/2007/2007_epiupdate_en.pdf Gigs (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree; India for instance has surpassed S. Africa for number of people infected with HIV and with AIDS, and the numbers for S and SE Asia don't appear to include the Indian subcontinent. Fuzbaby (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete the part about Islamic countries

I have no idea what the person who wrote this was thinking. From the looks of it they wanted to prove that Islam had nothing to do with HIV rates.

It is noteworthy that among the countries with the lowest incidence rates many non-muslim countries are found, such as Japan, North and South Korea, the Philippines, Mongolia, Romania, Bosnia&Hercegovina etc. It is also noteworthy that some predominantly muslim Countries such as Nigeria, Sudan or Somalia have high prevalence rates, thus presenting the issue of AIDS and religious affiliation as not that straight-forward.


1: Somalia is in a state of anarchy and has been for the last 17 years expect for the brief period of 6 months in 2006. It's really to get accurate data from it since most medical facility if it exists at all is very basic. How ever what has been accertained is that Somalia has low HIV rates. It even says so in the Somalia page.

The breadth of the AIDS pandemic has led to the idea in the West that the entire continent is ravaged by the disease. But Somalia — isolated for 14 years since the civil war began and populated by devout Muslims — has an infection rate of perhaps only 1.5 or 2 per cent of the adult population.

2: Nigeria is a Christian and Muslim country. The number of infected people in Nigeria by African Standards. Funnily enough. The places with the highest infection rates tend to be Christian. The Muslim areas in north tend to have either very low rates or practically non-existent.

3: Japan,South Korea,Romania,Bosnia (which is a partly muslim country) Are developed in comparison to Africa. These countries tend to have high rates of literacy compared to African countries and more education. Also they benefit from the fact that their neighbours have very low rates.

4: North Korea is isolated from the world. It's natural for them to have very low rates. Mongolia is a big sparsely populated countries near sparsely populated parts of their neighbours.

HIV isn't straight forward but Religion does play a part in it. Furious Stormrage (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


please delete this islamic part from main article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.247.15 (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The text referred to above has since been removed. The single sentence remaining is neutral and sourced. Why do you want it removed? Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Controversy over the cause of its spread

There seems to be a PR campaign to attribute the spread of AIDS to factors such as:

  1. insufficient government funding to discover a vaccine
  2. lack of access to symptom-reducing medicines such as antiretrovirals

Is anyone (i.e., a verifiable / reliable source) still saying that the primary reason the disease is spreading is sex outside of marriage?

Note carefully: I am not trying to "push" the latter POV. If no one has ever said this, or it's not being said any more, then no change is needed to the article. I'm only suggesting that if voluntary decisions to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage are a major transmission factor then we ought to mention this. (Again, assuming that this is a viewpoint held by a large enough number of doctors or epidemiologists to warrant mention.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, there was an announcement by the Catholic church in 2001 that promoting the use of condoms - although intended to curb the spread of AIDS - actually winds up accelerating its spread. The reasoning of the bishops was:

  1. that the promotion of condoms undermines the moral prohibition against out-of-wedlock sex
  2. that out-of-wedlock sex is the number one way AIDS is transmitted
  3. that undermining the moral prohibition against something tends to increase it
  4. that therefore promoting condoms tends to inclease out-of-wedlock sex and thus the transmission of AIDS.

Each of the church's premises is disputed, but that's their argument in a nutshell, as reported in the Washington Post and quoted by a group opposed to church policy. [1] Should we include this, since it is well-referenced and comes from a reliable source?

I found a quote that blames the Catholic Church's teachings on sexual morality:

AIDS/HIV is spreading across Africa like wildfire, and the PRIMARY reason is because the Catholic Church forbids the use of condoms [2]

Is this feminist e-Zine prominent enough to quote? (I daresay they are representative enough of public opinion, anyway. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism?

"The acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) pandemic is a widespread disease caused by the Reagan administration."

I think this may be an act of political partisanship...142.151.138.146 (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It's been reverted again, thanks. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Endemic

Isn't aids Endemic rather than Pandemic at this point.--J intela (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

In some parts of the world, HIV is believed to have become endemic, meaning that the has become so prevalent that its presense is self-sustaining. Because the article looks at the global infection, including the many areas where HIV and AIDS have not become endemic, it is still correct to speak of an AIDS pandemic. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 19:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

WHO's choice of words

RE this change [3] (by Deepak9856):

from
HIV infection is considered pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO)[4]
to
HIV infection is referred as epidemic by the World Health Organization (WHO).[5].

I think this edit raises an interesting consideration which deserves discussion: Deepak has already started a thread on the HIV/AIDS talk page. —MistyMorn (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I interpret this change of wording as the WHO no longer considers HIV/AIDS pandemic because it is now under control. I.e. it used to be a pandemic, but it is not anymore. I am changing the wording in the article accordingly. Countless reliable sources speaking about HIV/AIDS history refer to it as a pandemic to this day. Of the universe (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

List of updated sources

discussion about HIV screening topic coverage

Hi, at Talk:Public HIV testing in the United States#Broader topic of screening, there is ongoing discussion of re-focusing that article to be about HIV screening more broadly. This is a follow-on to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public HIV testing in the United States (which closed "no consensus"). Feel free to comment at the new discussion. --doncram 22:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Redirect

@HelgaStick: could you expand on your decision to redirect "AIDS crisis" here? My sense is that that specific phrasing refers more often to the epidemic in the United States in the 80s, even if it's also used to refer to AIDS worldwide or in other countries. Perhaps we could keep the original redirect but add a hatnote directing users looking for a more global perspective to this article? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

That would seem reasonable, although I'm not sure if the phrasing is used specifically in relation to the U.S., not nowadays anyway. I just thought the redirect I gave would be more relevant, as someone searching for "AIDS crisis" would probably more likely want information on the pandemic nature of HIV/AIDS, IMHO. HelgaStick (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
@HelgaStick: It's definitely still used to a significant degree to refer to the 1980s particularly and to the US particularly. It's not the only thing it's used for, but I think one way or another we should get users searching on that term to the U.S. article, whether directly or by a hatnote. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Hatnote seems like a good compromise :) HelgaStick (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Done! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Epidemiology_of_HIV/AIDS/Archive_1&oldid=1136703080"