There is a very high reported risk of AIDS in Africa and Asia. How true is this? Some people might say that many other diseases are being reported as AIDS so to encourage more donations from the West. Is this an epidemic which could wipe out an entire continent?
Perfectly accurate and true. But don’t take my word for it, see what the World Health Organisation has to say.
Some people say they were anally probed by aliems too. That doesn’t make the claim sensible or correct.
One of the great things about this place is we don’t take wild claims at face value. We ask what evidence people have for disputing the scientific evidence presented by the world’s foremost reseachers.
Is there any evidence for this particular conspiracy theory?
No it couldn’t “wipe out an entire continent”.
First of HIV is primarily a problem in sub-Sharan Africa. North Africa isn’t particularly badly affected and there’s no reaosna to suspect it will be.
Secondly there’s nothing magical in the soil or air of Africa that makes people there more susceptible to HIV. The reasons why Africa has such problems are mostly cultural and economic with a dash of genetics thrown in. Even if the death toll comes close to 100% people will simply emigrate to Africa from elsewhere and as a result change the cultural and economic factors that caused the problem. The African population may dceline but it will never come close to being depopulated.
Is the African AIDS pandemic a bluff?
And the countries with the supposedly highest rate of AIDS infections are also some of the countries in the world with the highest population growth. So I don’t think there’s any risk of a depopulation.
Well that’s a relief. :rolleyes:
Great. A generation of orphans, that’s nothing to worry about. :rolleyes:
You don’t think so? Personally I’d think that would be a problem. But I’ve also always been so fussy. Also all I said was that depopulation didn’t seem to be anywhere in the cards.
Yes, population growth can exist despite widespread Aids deaths. As your linked article can’t even get the name of the BMJ right, and all stems from one guy’s claims. Googling ‘christian fiala’ turns up lots of conspiracy websites, and not many scientific ones.
“As your linked article can’t even get the name of the BMJ right, and all stems from one guy’s claims…it’s hardly reliable evidence”
Don’t know why you go all fire and brimstone on my ass over this. I just put in the link because it made the rounds of the Internet a little while back, and I recon it is the basis of dalej42’s OP – not because I personally support what is written in the article.
That’s right. Pretty much what I wrote. And since population growth has been going on for a long time despite widespread malaria deaths, there’s no reason to think AIDS should change that – especially since more people are killed by malaria, and a host of other sicknesses, that is killed by AIDS.
Nobody’s suggesting that malaria etc. aren’t important. But you seem to be saying that having a generation of Aids orphans doesn’t matter, as long as there’s still growth in overall numbers. Or am I misunderstanding something?
Not in sub-Saharan Africa (from here)
No. I’m only saying excatly what I said; that depopulation is not likely - or indeed wipe out an entire continent.
Rune is right. I was wrong.
The OP does indeed ask “Is this an epidemic which could wipe out an entire continent?” and Rune addresses exactly this.
Apologies for my rolleyes.
Out of curiosity, would the high growth rate have anything to do with the high HIV infection rate? Mother-to-child transmission, perhaps?
Good point, Futile Gesture. I think I ended up overlooking that due to Rune’s rather antagonistic comment about “supposedly high rate of AIDS infections”.
What effect would a dangerous influenza strain have on a immuno-depleted population, though?
I have a sinking feeling we’d see negative numbers then.
And a large, immuno-depleted population would be ideal for a full crossover of a bird influenza. Which just hit Sardinia, north of Africa, a couple days ago.
The strains prevalent in Africa, along with the shortage of anti-viral drugs and aggressive treatment, means that HIV infections doesn’t have the extremely long dormancy period that it has here. A bird flu wouldn’t wipe people out all that much faster than AIDS already does.
Actually, these orphans would be at high risk too.
Here’s CNN’s terribly sobering account:
"AIDS in Africa touches children in two ways – as a disease that kills their parents, leaving them orphans, and as a disease that infects children themselves.
Ten percent of the world’s people live in Africa, but it is home to 90 percent of the world’s HIV-infected children. In sub-Saharan Africa 470,000 children die every year from AIDS. For more than 90 percent of these children, the deadly virus is transmitted from their mother.
Of 30 children born to HIV-positive mothers, approximately 10 will acquire the virus simply by being born. Another four will become infected from breast-feeding. Most of these children will not live to see their 5th birthdays.
One study found that among youths under 20, for example, for every HIV-positive boy three to seven times that many girls were infected."
Or an article from the front page of today’s Globe and Mail: 22 years old, widowed and a mother to 14
So what do you guys think.
WHO claims 20-39% in a lot of countries. Afrol news says bah, you dont know anything.
I remember hearing stuff like 35% in this country and 40% in that. My immidiate reaction to this was, 40%? Get out.
Does anyone know how exactly they measure this thing? Do they take regular samples, and are they of a statistically valid size?