I ran across this 2005 article and wondered how Uganda is going lately in battling AIDS in 2009.
Here’s an article from 2005 that claims that the decrease in AIDS is primarily due to death.
I’ve been to Kampala (2002) and there was a nightclub there that must have had 1500 prostitutes. I seriously doubt gospel is having any kind of positive effect on diminishing the transmission of AIDS.
The strategy that will be most effective at combating HIV transmission is the one that people will listen to and apply consistently. This is true whether the strategy is condom-based, abstinence-based or fidelity-based.
Predictions that a condom-based strategy will or won’t work, or that an abstinence-based strategy will or won’t work, often depend on assumptions about how ready people are to change their behaviour, and this assumptions in turn can reflect the attitudes and preconceptions of the people making the predictions. For instance, because I myself have no objection to using condoms and in fact regularly use them, I tend to assume that others can be persuaded to adopt my attitude. Equally I tend to assume that they would be as unwilling as I am to forswear sex altogether.
This assumption may, however, be misplaced. There is no reason to assume that everyone is like me, or shares my attitudes. There is plenty of evidence that it is not always easy to persuade people to change their behaviour with respect to condoms, and not just in South Africa.- rates of teenage pregnancy, teenage abortion and teenage STD transmission in, say, the UK point strongly to this.
I’m open to correction by those who know better, but as I understand it:
-
The Uganda campaign was not “gospel-based”; it relied on abstinence and sexual exclusivity as well as condoms, not instead of them. The campaign is commonly referred to as the “ABC” campaign, because of its three messages – abstain, be faithful, use a condom.
-
The campaign sought to target different groups with different messages. At the risk of oversimplifying, schoolchildren were encouraged to defer sexual activity; those in settled relationships were encouraged to be sexually exclusive. Other groups such as sex workers, migrant workers and single adults were encouraged to use condoms.
-
In each case, the message chosen was not the one judged to be morally good according to some ideological criterion, but the one to which, it was felt, the target group was most likely to respond to.
-
These judgements were made not by “western experts” but locally, by health workers and planners from the target community.
Sounds to me like the author of the article quoted in the OP is someone is only willing to view the world through the goggles of their preconceptions.
According to this articlefrom the World Health Organisation:
and
I’m not saying abstinence etc hasn’t helped, but clearly the author of the article has an utterly one-eyed view.
While the gospel, well the NT, states against sexual promiscuity (both physical and spiritual), AFAIK it doesn’t state abstinence. It does caution about who a believer should not unite with.
Honestly, I would discount anyone who would write something like this:
20 years ago, no one even knew what AIDS was - it was just coming onto the scene. You can’t even tell me that the 0.3% represents numbers from any real sampling scenario.
To me, it makes about as much sense as saying “Computer security doesn’t work. We’ve spent billions on cybersecurity, but computer-related crimes were 100 times more prevalent in 2008 than in 1988.”
Wouldn’t a wide range of partners be counterproductive, here? 
And dracoi, people most certainly did know about AIDS in 1989. The first diagnosed cases were in the 70s, and it hit the public consciousness in about 1981 or so.