AIDS Education..Or Condom Promotion?(Viacom)

It isn't either or. It isn't 100 people or one person over 100 years. Whether you are one person or one of a group of one hundred, your risk factor is the same. They had to do a sizeable group in order to come up with the factor. That's all. One person's risk is about one percent PER YEAR. Each of the one hundred people have the same personal risk.

It took three hours to download adobe reader so I'm not left with enough time to actually read the report today.

Scromping like a bunny for a hundred years with nary a chance of catching HIV...

no, no, no...silly, madg....I keep telling you, if you live a hundred years, your risk factor would be HUGE. I am not sure it is a simple multiplication of the one year risk factor but it is not far off. The probability that YOU will be the ONE increases every year.

Well....it doesn't increase directly, because your risk stays at 1% a year. However, it increases as a probability.

If one in one hundred people who swam in the ocean were eaten by a shark, your risk of being eaten would be one percent. Do you think, however, that your risk of being eaten would increase if you swam in the ocean every year for a hundred years? Of course it would.

How about if you play Russian roulette. If there is one bullet in a gun and once a year you pull the trigger, your odds each year is one in however many bullets the gun holds, but repeated attempts increase the odds even if the bullet is randomly replaced each year.

Any time you keep doing something risky your odds of a negative outcome increases with time.

The study, however, is too incomplete to judge why each transmission happened. If the failure rate could be defined by a cause it could potentially be eliminated. My guess is, the product is just faulty one percent of the time. That's a random cause and brings the worst case scenerio for your survival. Perhaps the user is at fault one percent of the time (per year). That is better, but you know what they say, "No one is perfect."

I'm rusty on some of this stuff so if I turn out to be wrong don't hold it against me. :)

Person-Years of exposure. They use 100 in order to come up with a percentage. If they had, say, 10 participants for ten years it would be 100 person years. That doesn't change the chances of each individual. It just provides you with a percentage number.

In 10 years, one in ten will get the disease. In one year, only one in one hundred will get the disease. There are variable problems, of course, because the study didn't cover enough usage/frequency/method issues to judge how random the failure rate is. They did talk a lot about the frequency of product failure rate -- a random cause for failure. I went over it very quickly, but I only saw that they tested heterosexual couples (I was in a hurry).

Now, I am soooooo finished with this (unless you find better data than that). ROTFL!

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.