As I’m sure is the 87% number.
Nuh uh.
sigh
The odds of transmission in one act of sex, without a condom is 0.1%. AKA 1 in 1000.
The odds of transmission in one act of sex, with a condom is 87% less than it is without a condom.
The odds of transmission in one act of sex, without a condom is 0.1%. AKA 1 in 1000.
“87% less” means the same thing as “13% of”.
13% of the rate of sex without a condom–0.1%–is 0.013%. AKA 1 in 8000.
I can handle arithmetic. Please don’t patronize me.
Did you read the quote? Is it incorrect?
My point is that it is correct. So I don’t see what problem you have with my math, because my math is based on what it says. Compounding the 0.1% base rate of transmission with the decrease of 13% is 0.013%. If you think the math is something other than 0.1% * 13%, then I need to see what that math is, because otherwise I don’t know how you’re reading it that’s different from me.
Ok , so what I get from the cite, is that indeed *the numbers used *ARE supported – it’s the conclusion reached/meaning assigned/spin given by the Church that’s questionable. 87% better may statistically be inferior to the theoretically achievable 100% better of , to turn around the phrase, “fully consistent abstinece” , but it is substantially better than nothing!
And yes, the Church could be well advised, if that’s what the doctrine requires, to just continue to insist in that they absolutely oppose nonmarital sex and birth control on purely moral and spiritual grounds, and avoid resting on spinning statistics. What happens if/when someone invents a 99% safe and effective technology? Keep claiming it’s not perfect enough?
The decrease is 87%, not 13%. And the point is that that figure is for 100 years of usage, not an individual encounter.
Wrong. Gay male, 60+ (63, I believe), monogamous for the last two decades, kilogamous[sup]*[/sup] formerly… it’s not that hard to remember a few details on the odd fellow Doper here and there.
removes goggles
I can see some plausible deniability there, certainly. What I can’t see is any attempt to answer the question in the OP.
*A neologism, I admit, but I think it’s not a bad one, at that.
That’s true.
WRT remembering Doper details: there are 82,000 of us, you know. I rarely remember much about anybody, beyond the stuff that jumps out (ie., Siam Sam lives in Thailand, and so on.)
It’s effectiveness is 87%. 87 times out of 100, it will be effective. Look at the sentence in the 3rd post, “Generally, the condom’s effectiveness at preventing HIV transmission is estimated to be 87%, but it may be as low as 60% or as high as 96%.” If we were talking about a sale at a supermarket, only paying 60% of the original price is really good. That’s a big sale. Still having to pay 96% of the original price though, that’s not much of a bargain. That’s a small sale. So why do they consider 60% to be low and 96% to be high?
It’s because they’re saying that a 60% sale means that you get 60% off the original price and end up paying only 40%. And a 96% sale means that you only pay 4% of the original price. A hundred dollar widget costs $4.
Ahah. Woops. :smack:
Please note:
The article linked by Marienee in this post is the same one i cited in post #3, but Marienee’s link is better because you can get the whole article without a subscription.
I’ve asked a Moderator if I may respond to this one point.
Your post suggests that I have tried to trap you using the well-known logical fallacy implicit in the question ‘Have you stopped beating your wife?’. I have not done so, and it is unfair to suggest that I have.
‘Have you stopped beating your wife’ is a question that contains a hidden premise, namely that the addressee has ever beaten his wife.
The question I asked you does not contain a hidden premise. I asked ‘Do you think it is important that people should only assert things that are objectively verifiable?’.
Malacandra, I know you are entitled to ignore a question for whatever reason (e.g. if you feel unable to answer it). But it is neither fair nor honest to accuse me of employing logically fallacious questions when I have not done so.
But if you’re correct (and i believe you are), and even 100% condom efficacy wouldn’t be good enough for the Catholic Church, don’t you think it’s somewhat disingenuous of them to come out and declare that 87% “falls well short of an adequate means of disease prevention”?
That is, by making the argument that 87% isn’t good enough, they imply that there is a figure that they would consider acceptable. But we all know that they’re not going to change their minds even if we develop a 100% effective condom. So their weighing in on this debate really has nothing to do with the numbers anyway, and their assertion regarding the inadequacy of condoms is a complete red herring.
The Church considers fornication a mortal (as opposed to venial) sin. Anyone who dies without confessing and being absolved by a priest is therefore (perfect contrition aside) doomed to an eternity in Hell.
If it’s effective 87% of the time, that means the decrease is 87%. If it had an 87% failure rate, the decrease would be 13%.
I’m going to move this from General Questions to Great Debates.
Gfactor
General Questions Moderator
- The risk of pregnancy without birth control is roughly 80 per 100 person years.
- The risk of pregnancy with always use of condoms is roughly 10 per 100 person years. (Similar numbers to items 1 and 2 are widely reported, often as “condoms have a 10% failure rate.”)
- The risk of HIV transmission without condoms as reported in this study is about 7 per 100 person years.
- The risk of HIV transmission with always use of condoms as reported in this study is about 1 per 100 person years.
The 13% is attained by dividing the 1 in item 4 by the 7 in item 3. It is not at all the same number as the 10% in item 2. The 13% (or 87%) do not correspond to the way effectiveness of birth control is traditionally reported. This leads to confusion, which may be intentional to promote an anti-condom message, since most people don’t have much knowledge of statistics.
Naw, I’m sure it was just an honest oversight.
True. But my spidey-sense was screaming a warning that your question was loaded, such that there was a “Gotcha!” waiting whichever answer I offered. At times like that I often become quite obdurate. Well, then, in civility’s name:
In general, yes, I do - and, to give one specific example, in the matter of condom use I should say it was extremely important. On the other hand, the Church is in the habit of making some assertions which are not objectively verifiable: God exists; He made his Word flesh; the Incarnate Word walked on the Sea of Galilee, transformed water into wine, raised the dead and was himself raised; and to those that received Him, He gave the power to become sons of God. The point is that someone who makes such statements ought not to be viewed as incapable of making the same kind of verifiable statements about mundane matters as you or I. It seems that when the RCC speaks about condom efficacy, it has grounds for doing so - and it is insulting to presume out of hand that it would not.
Hell, by Church doctrine even being a virgin doesn’t prevent you from getting knocked up.