AIDS Education..Or Condom Promotion?(Viacom)

MRC ^ | February 14, 2003 | by L. Brent Bozell III

[eastsider]

In the study he cites, condoms prevented seroconversion over 99% of the time.

The rate of prevention in the NIH study (thanks for the link) attributable to condom use is 85%, not 99%.

Overall, Davis and Weller estimated that condoms provided an 85% reduction in HIV/AIDS transmission risk when infection rates were compared in always versus never users.

[Luna]

TV writers, producers, directors, actors who promote and glorify immorality:

"Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?"

[eastsider]

I agree that condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission 13.4% of the time.

[FreeTally]

Of that 6.7%, condoms would be ineffective in preventing transmission 13.4% of the time.

How could anyone ever come to that conclusion? Your saying that people who got HIV, 13.4% would have still gotten it even if they ahd used condoms? No one could know that and there is no way to determine that. If I misunderstood your statistics, please be mroe clear.

[FreeTally]

I agree that condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission 13.4% of the time.

You agree with a stat that no one could know is true?

[eastsider]

Your saying that people who got HIV, 13.4% would have still gotten it even if they ahd used condoms?

Assuming the accuracy of the NIH study (see link in post #4 above), yes. The NIH study concluded that condoms had an 85% effective rate in preventing HIV transmission. As I see it, it follows that condoms would have been ineffective in preventing HIV transmission 15% of the time.

[eastsider]

I am assuming the accuracy of the NIH study, which is admittedly a summary study.

[eastsider]

When the percentage of effectiveness is based on the rate of incidence, what is the difference between saying "85% more effective than not using condoms" and "85% effective?"

[RAT Patrol]

One person having sex for 100 years or 100 people having sex for one year… or proportional variations thereon.

But that doesn't make sense. Each person would have sex with varying frequency. I could see it being 100 times or 100 people; e.g. One in a hundred would contract the disease. The comment you made about having sex for 50 years with an HIV positive partner doesn't make sense.

[RAT Patrol]

But how can they say that? I think they must mean times and not years. Otherwise this study is ridiculous. How many times are they allowing for each person per year? It doesn't make sense to me that way, madg.

[eastsider]

Based on the rate of incidence stated in the NIH study, it seems reasonable to me to conclude that condoms will fail to prevent the incidence of HIV transmission 15% of the time. I find nothing deceptive in Bozell's reading of that part of the NIH study.

I'm getting ready to shove off and I rarely FReep on weekends. I've enjoyed our discussion, and appreciate its civility. Have a great weekend, madg.

[RAT Patrol]

Thanks for the link. I am going to have to look into it further, but I think it means out of 100 people per year, .9 will get the disease. That means one person has a .9% change of getting the disease PER YEAR. At the end of 50 years your chances, even with appropriate usage, would be quite high.

I'm not sure I'm right. But if the disease is as hard to get as you said earlier, there would be no disaster in Africa. I have to sign off for the night, but I'll check back on this. Go ahead and tell me where I'm wrong. I'll look at it tomorrow.

It would be easier to compare this per exposure. I might be misunderstanding something.