MobBoss said:
And here is where you perpetrate your falsehood. The number of new heterosexual cases is not resulting in a higher percentage as compared to the number of new gay cases. In fact, those percentages you listed are most likely reversed in the real situation, as opposed to your fantasy.
OK accusing me of being a liar without having any real understanding of what I'm saying is a gauntlet situation I can't resist so here we go.
It is estimated that there are now 58,300 individuals currently living with HIV in the UK, over a third of whom (19,700) are unaware of their condition. HIV rates continue to climb. Newly diagnosed cases reported for 2004 stand at 7,275. There is a continuing epidemic among the homosexual community and men having sex with men, accounting for approximately 2,185, or 30%, of new diagnoses in 2004. The main increase, however, is among heterosexuals, the majority of whom probably acquired the virus in Africa, with 4,287 new diagnoses in 2004, accounting for 59% of all new diagnoses. Injecting drug use and mother-to-children transmission continue to remain low, accounting for about 100 cases each in 2004.
Just to clear something up.
Also from a while back when I explained that higher growth rates would mean and eventual outstripping of heterosexuals, Mob Boss you appeared to miss the point about growth rates on two seperate occasions, being as the UK's most recent figures show how heterosexuals now have outstripped at least in new case homosexual men.
Heterosexual transmission accounts for an increasing proportion of AIDS cases in the United States. From 1985 to 1995, the proportion of U.S. AIDS cases attributed to heterosexual transmission grew from 2.5 percent to 15.1 percent.
Here's something I want you to consider as most data we have supplied to you has shown in general that heterosexual growth rates are growing where as homosexual ones apart form small peaks are generally level. I'll show you what this means if growth rates of new diagnosis level off in gay men and increase in straight men as they appear to be doing. Here are some UK figures since we began talking about the UK they are more relevant to the point I was making.
http://avert.org.uk/aidsfaqs.htm#q2
Each year until 1999, there were more new HIV diagnoses in men who have sex with men than in any other group. Since then, heterosexual contact has been the major route of infection in the UK, peaking at 62% of new diagnoses in 2003, and accounting for 53% in 2005.7
At the end of 2004, an estimated 58,300 adults were living with HIV. Of the estimated 29,700 heterosexuals, some 17,700 (60%) were women.3 The male to female ratio of HIV diagnoses made before 1989 was more than 10 to 1, whereas in 2005 the ratio for new diagnoses was around 3 male to 2 female.4
Age group:
People in the age group 25-34 years have accounted for 44% of all HIV diagnoses in the UK, as of the end of March 2006.5
Ethnicity:
In 2005, 6,725 HIV diagnoses were reported in the UK. Among the 5,282 whose ethnicity is known, 39% were white, 51% black-African, 3% black-Caribbean and 7% of other or mixed race.6
Transmission route:
As of the end of March 2006, it has been reported that 46% of HIV infections resulted from sex between men, 40% from heterosexual sex, 6% from injecting drug use, 2% from mother to child transmission, 2% from blood/tissue transfer or blood factor, and 4% from other or undetermined routes.
Each year until 1999, there were more new HIV diagnoses in men who have sex with men than in any other group. Since then, heterosexual contact has been the major route of infection in the UK, peaking at 62% of new diagnoses in 2003, and accounting for 53% in 2005.7
http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm
Taking the statistics from here and the growth rates from above
Male to male sexual contact=18,203
Growth rate= 30%
Heterosexual contact=12,683
Growth rate=59%
Here's what I mean when I said that the heterosexual population will soon outstrip the homosexual population.
But look at the figures for yourself and try to figure out what the totals will be in 10 years, which should be at least fairly accurate given that growth rates stay fairly uniform, although in reality heterosexual growth rates as a trend are going up and homosexual growth rates are levelling off, but let's ignore this for simplicities sake as I want you to follow what I was talking about.
in one year the homosexual population will be assuming the population of homosexuals at an age to have sex
18,203*130/100 or a 30% increase from the base number
=population next year=23,664.0
in one year the heterosexual population will be:-
12,683 * 159/100 or a 59% increase from the base number.
=population next year=20166.0
in ten years what do you think the population would show assuming growth rates proceded to this very simple model?
New cases in gay men=18,203(1.3)^10=250,944.0
New cases in straight men=12,683 *(1.59)^10=1,309,765.0
1.3 is equivalent to 130%
1.59 is equivalent to 159% btw.
OK so if you have a larger growth rate in a smaller populaiton, you can see quite clearly that eventually it will outstrip the smaller growth rate in the larger population.
In order to explain this properly I'd have to use a logistical model, but I think that would stretch your maths too far, if you want me to do so you merely have to ask though, the point is equally applicable in a logistical model, it just shows more realistic trends over long time periods with large populations. I hope that is clear now. By the way maths is absolute and it doesn't lie(my assertions are 100% were 100% absolute) You can argue with the statistics though all you like though that's your look out, but as we've showed before current trends appear to be bearing up, it was predicted about 10 years ago that cases of HIV would outstrip new cases in the homosexual population, I hope you now understand what this means in the long term for over all figures given a simplistic growth rate. In real terms it means in the UK HIV is now a sexual disease not a homosexual one, it also means that targetting homosexuals alone as I said before is a dangerous message and could cost lives.
