Skip to comments.Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men
Posted on 11/24/2003 4:55:35 PM PST by scripter
British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, St Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, Canada.
OBJECTIVE: To assess how HIV infection and AIDS (HIV/AIDS) impacts on mortality rates for gay and bisexual men.
METHODS: Vital statistics data were obtained for a large Canadian urban centre from 1987 to 1992. Three scenarios were utilized with assumed proportions of gay and bisexual men of 3%, 6% and 9% among the male population age 20 years. For each scenario, non-HIV deaths were distributed according to the assumed proportion of the total population (3%, 6% or 9%) but 95% of HIV deaths were distributed to gay and bisexual men as this is the proportion of AIDS cases in gay and bisexual men in this centre. The main outcome measures of interest were age-specific patterns of death, life expectancy and life expectancy lost due to HIV/AIDS at exact age 20 years, and the probability of living from age 20 to 65 years.
RESULTS: Estimates of the mid-period gay and bisexual population ranged from 5406 to 16,219 for the three scenarios, and total deaths in these men from 953 to 1703. Age-specific mortality was significantly higher for gay and bisexual men than all men aged 30-44. Life expectancy at age 20 for gay and bisexual men ranged from 34.0 years to 46.3 years for the 3% and 9% scenarios respectively. These were all lower than the 54.3 year life expectancy at age 20 for all men. The probability of living from age 20 to 65 years for gay and bisexual men ranged from 32% for the 3% scenario, to 59% for the 9% scenario. These figures were the probability of living from 20 to 65 was 78%.
CONCLUSION: In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.
Definitely worth the read. Thanks.
It seems as if they don't like their statistics getting reported at all. Nobody (at least here) is using this information for any type of restriction. We're simply using it to demonstrate the severe health hazards of the homosexual lifestyle result in the ultimate payment of an early death.
The response is an understandable CYA, lest they be marginalized in the same manner John Lott has been marginalized in the area of firearms scholarship.
More to the point, however, this shows rather starkly the bad side of "being fair" to people who insist on doing stupid things.
The only way homosexuals can be accepted in society, is if they can cover up all of the bad stuff associated with their lifestyle.
We can, of course, cite the fact that homosexual practice is disgusting. But that's just "ignorance and intolerance."
It should be enough to cite the rectal nature of male homosexual practice. It can't be healthy to shove all that crap around, and to smear it where it shouldn't be smeared; not to mention the tissue damage. And so nobody talks about that: we've reverted to the euphemism of "unsafe sexual practices."
It should be enough to cite the extremely high rates of venereal disease -- but again, it's "unprotected sex."
It should be enough to cite the obvious fact that homosexual practice translates into a drastically lower life expectancy -- but instead we're faced with demands for "tolerance."
It should be enough to point out that the vast ill-health associated with homosexual behavior is easily avoided: "don't do that!" But instead we're told that condoms will take care of it.
None of this stuff can be hidden forever, though. Eventually it will become all too obvious what's going on, and the tide will turn against homosexuals.
I concur and think the above summarizes the situation very well.
My post was also a response to somebody who became a freeper this morning, posted only once on a hot cultural issue and with a screen name: temptest. Something just didn't seem right and now I see the account has been banned. What I suppose I'm saying is that sometimes the discernment that something isn't quite right may reflect in my response.
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.