Or . . . Americans are simply more likely to use condoms, and the epidemic was heavily concentrated in gays/drug users, at first. Also, IIRC the strain of AIDS common in America is harder to catch as well.
Americans have always been heavily into preaching fidelity, and ignoring it in practice. I don’t buy the idea that we are so much more restrained that it has a major effect on an epidemic.
As Der Trihs said, it probably has more to do with wide-spread use of condoms in America, and nothing to do with Americans having less sex or being more faithful. Additionally, in this country, AIDS hit a small, self-contained minority first: gays. The gay community acted sort of like a canary in a coalmine for the AIDS epidemic. Society as a whole got a chance to see what the disease did, how it spread, and how to fight it, without the disease raging through the mainstream population.
Which sounds great, and if humans were emotionless robots who would just do what they were told, we’d have AIDS whipped in a couple decades. Unfortunetly, people just won’t stop screwing around. Promoting abstinence and fidelity is simply not an effective way of fighting AIDS. Promoting condom use actually seems to get through to people. Not enough people, unfortunetly, but it is far, far more effective than telling people how much sex they should have.
We’re talking about human behavior. Common sense does not enter into it.
Also, what precedent are you talking about?
Prevailing Western morality is an ideal, not a reality. Something like 90% of Americans will tell you infidelity is wrong and they wouldn’t do it. If you ask them if they’ve ever been cheated on, something like over 50% will tell you they have. If you ask them if they’ve ever been the cheater you get unreliable answers. I’ve seen everything from about 20% to over 50%.
That 90% of the population who think infidelity is wrong probably don’t have condoms in their wallets or purses because they’re not really planning on cheating. Oops!
And even in our reasonably well-educated US, I still run across intelligent, educated, mature adult women who don’t bother with condoms. They’ll say, “he’s married and I know I’m the only one he’s sleeping with, so I’m not worried.” Or, “hey, I’ve had sex with the guy and I know he’s 100% straight! It’s only the gay guys you have to worry about.” So we still have a lot of ignorance to fight in the US.
Prevailing Western morality is a terrible way to prevent AIDS!
Despite our cultural differences, one thing remains constant in all humans: we wanna fuck. Another nearly-universal constant is that someone can tell people about the potential consequences of fucking and their minds will quickly reassure them that these bad things won’t happen to* them.*
Cultural change has to start from within. African women aren’t going to start demanding fidelity because we tell them to-- they have to begin to value it themselves.
Well the incidence of AIDS in a western society relative to Africa doesn’t impress you. How about Saudi Arabia
The program I was referring, which Bill Gates promotes, is the ABC strategy. Fidelity should be promoted as a method of HIV prevention. Now, fidelity with a partner who is already infected with HIV should include condom use, too.
One of the shortcomings of abstinence-until-marriage is that it kind of leaves gay people out of the loop. Of course those pushing for this kind of education are generally also against making gay marriage legal.
Actually, that’s not true. Neither is the idea of putting off sexual activity just a
“Western” culture thing. I prefer the term “delay” instead of “abstain.” In parts of Africa where there is a very high rate of HIV infection in sexually active adults, it makes sense to encourage young people to delay having sexual activity until they can stick to one partner. And then get tested, too. I’ve seen articles about teen groups in South Africa promoting this idea. Cultures can change quite a bit when everybody is dying from something that is often preventable.
The problem, as I see it, is that some people whose agenda is to push cultural or religious morality see HIV prevention as an ideal opportunity to pretend they are health educators and use this forum to push their ideas. Ask em what they think about masturbation (which they should be supporting and encouraging, if they are most concerned about spread of HIV), and they’ll usually tell you they’re against that, too.
And what message does absinence only say to a gay man? Whats that? Wait for marriage? Your relationships aren’t allowed…besides they’re immoral anyway…so never have sex.
This is supposed to prove what? Your first quote starts off by saying “There is limited information for HIV/AIDS/STD in Saudi Arabia,” which to me sounds like they’re saying they don’t have any idea how common HIV is in Saudi Arabia. There are very few reported cases, but how many unreported cases? The Saudi government does not strike me as a source for unbiased, accurate information on… well, just about anything, really, but especially a subject so religiously and ideologically charged as HIV transmission rates. Your second quote indicates that the Islamic emphasis on fidelity and abstinence has not had much effect, as the one identified vector for the disease is men going over scenes and sleeping around, then bringing it back. Doesn’t sound to me like abstinence and fidelity have been taken to heart by the members of this particular culture. Assuming the HIV rate is really that low, it seems likely to me that the brutal repression of women in that country has more to do with it than any particular emphasis on chastity.
Obviously you haven’t ben paying attention to the conference. The repression of women is a major factor in the prevalence of Aids in Africa.
The reason there is limited information in Saudi Arabia is because AIDS is not an epidemic there.
Well, it probably isn’t rampant there, but the fact is that there aren’t a lot of data about HIV in Saudi Arabia: testing is not readily available, and it’s a pretty closed society when it comes to homosexuality, talking about sexuality at all, etc. The majority of cases (that we know of) are ex-pats or Saudis who lived in more liberal parts of the world and came home. The most recent number I heard was more than 10,000 cases. But really, nobody knows.
According to UNAIDS for the year 2003 there is no data for Saudi Arabia. I’m not sure what to infer from that. Either UNAIDS isn’t very good at collecting AIDS data, or Saudi Arabia isn’t very good at reporting it.
According to this article by Agency France-Presse dated Dec. 1st, 2003:
According to this much more recent NYT article (free sub required):
It seems reliable information about HIV & AIDS in Saudi Arabia is only now just beginning to become clearer.
Because there are so many barriers to testing for HIV in most parts of the world, it’s really hard to know how many people are infected (unless population-based seroprevalence studies are conducted). Once those infected start becoming ill and dying, then it should be more apparent, but not always. The data on diseases and deaths aren’t always accurate either, and usually there’s a lot of denial. Some governments might exaggerate the AIDS problem in order to get more international aid, but more often they will deny there’s a problem either because of the stigma, fear of scaring away business or tourism, concern about how much it will cost to address the problem, discomfort in acknowledging a disease that’s primarily sexually transmitted, etc.
Even in the US, where free, anonymous HIV testing is available in most parts of the country (and effective treatment is available too, so there’s an incentive to know one’s status ) many individuals delay getting tested for HIV until they get sick.
For all these reasons, it’s hard to get timely information about trends in this epidemic.
To the same degree and kind as in Saudi Arabia?
No, the reason there is limited information in Saudi Arabia is because there are no reliable procedures in place to measure the level of HIV transmission in Saudi Arabia, and the government is actively complicit in keeping it so. We don’t know how common HIV is in the country: we don’t have reliable data to look at.
I heard something about developing a cheap Femidon for use in developing countries.
Unfortunately the ‘cheap’ cost works out about one fifth of the daily living rate.
I’m a bit nervous about distributing anti-retrovirals, after all when someone is HIV positive they are a ‘carrier’ - it is a bit like cosseting Malarial mosquitos.
Would it not be more sensible to let the thing burn itself out, rather than chucking kerosene on the bonfire ?
There has been some concern that the people either won’t use the drugs correctly because they lack the funds, or they won’t get the proper dose because they’ll share them with others. I don’t know enough about the HIV virus to know if this is true, but some people have expressed concern that treating the illness incorrectly could cause it to become drug-immune and mutate into other forms.
Boy, that’s a tough one. My heart instantly decried the notion, but my head is insisting it’s worth some thought. I think of the horrible abuses of that system and of the terrible shame heaped upon the sufferers of Hansons’ disease and part of me says, “never again.” But another part of me says that drastic times call for drastic measures. Africa is bleeding.
Could shame be helpful in this siutation? I don’t know. As horrible as it is for those afflicted could it prevent more people from catching the disease?
People with HIV who are effectively being treated with antiretrovirals usually have lower viral loads in their blood, so are less likely to spread the virus to others. So treatment also helps prevent more cases.
When you suggest treating HIV like leprosy, do you mean quarantine? Seems like it makes more sense to treat people with medications that allow them to stay healthy enough to work, contribute to society, take care of their families, etc. rather than to banish them and let them die. In some parts of the world, like South Africa, many of the people living with HIV are teachers, health care workers and/or parents. Many have already died and sticking the rest on reservations seems kind of counter-productive.
Cuba apparently kept their infection rate low at least in part by setting up camps where people with HIV could live separately from the rest of the population. This was just one of their strategies to combat the spread of HIV, though. And this kind of thing might only work in a small, island population. It’s not realistic, sensible or moral in most settings. A lot of people who suspected they might be HIV positive would do all they could to avoid being tested, for one thing.
HIV isn’t Ebola. Some people have milder strains, and even before there was treatment, some folks lived for years. The idea of a virus burning out is based on a virulent virus that kills its host quickly, which HIV doesn’t.
I don’t see aids as a universal epidemic. It’s obviously worse in underdeveloped countries and is affected by cultural differences. The programs should be taylored to the region in question and like any other program should be tested for cost effectiveness. To say ABC doesn’t work should be based on research and not opinion. It’s absolutely the most cost effect method of controlling Aids on a personal level.
I think shame is a big part of the reason this epidemic is so big and so hard to control. Shame keeps people from testing to find out their HIV status and from telling their sex partners that they are infected. Shame is why countries/populations/regions won’t admit they are affected by it and ask for help. Shame keeps policy makers and educators from talking honestly and openly about how HIV is spread and providing the tools people need to protect themselves.
Etc.