 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / March 2005Registered Deaths Increase In Lockstep With Population Growth (SA)
Death notification forms data from Stats SA: (number of dn forms - percentage increase) 1997 318,287 1998 367,689 +15.5% 1999 381,902 +03.8% 2000 413,969 +08.3% 2001 451,936 +09.1% 2002 499,268 +10.4% 2003 --- Notice how annual increases in the number of registered deaths hovers around an increase of about 10% per year. (1) Wait a minute... The population of South Africa ALSO increases at about 10% per year. (2) Coincidence?? I don't think so. And this is TAC's huge increase in deaths? Alex 1) Data from Appendix E of Stats SA's report on death notification forms, which can be found here: http://www.statssa.gov.za/Publications/publicationsearch.asp?PN=fqtqz.t&PM=&PY=&PS=1 2) The population of South Africa was 40.6 million in 1996, and 40.8 million in 2001. That is an annual population growth of (44.8/40.6 ^ 1/5) 1.10345 or 10.3% per year. http://www.statssa.gov.za/census01/html/default.asp > Death notification forms data from Stats SA: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > growth of (44.8/40.6 ^ 1/5) 1.10345 or 10.3% per year. > http://www.statssa.gov.za/census01/html/default.asp I have been following your posts with interest and amazement. Are you really being serious in denying that hiv/aids is not an issue here in ZA. Also, The media was awash with reports 2 weeks back about how incredibly inaccurate STATSA is. Just my tuppence worth J. "JaY" <jAy@jou_ma_se_huis> wrote in message > "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > > Death notification forms data from Stats SA: > > (number of dn forms - percentage increase) > > 1997 318,287 > > 1998 367,689 +15.5% [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 2002 499,268 +10.4% > > 2003 --- > > Notice how annual increases in the number of registered deaths > > hovers around an increase of about 10% per year. (1) > > Wait a minute... The population of South Africa ALSO > > increases at about 10% per year. (2) > > Coincidence?? I don't think so. And this is TAC's huge > > increase in deaths? > I have been following your posts with interest and amazement. Are you really > being serious in denying > that hiv/aids is not an issue here in ZA. > Also, The media was awash with reports 2 weeks back about how incredibly > inaccurate STATSA is. > Just my tuppence worth And the population is increasing at 10% per year? That would mean one in every five females was producing a baby every year. Baby females, child females, fertile females, infertile females, menopausal females, elderly females would all have to be having children. Alternatively every single woman of child bearing age would have to have a child every year. Not happening. Not even in places like Swaziland where the birthrate at 6 live births per woman is the highest in the world. It would also mean that the population would double exponentially in less than ten years. This is not happening. STATSA talks rubbish some of the time. Alex talks rubbish all the time. Moira, the Faerie Godmother > "JaY" <jAy@jou_ma_se_huis> wrote in message > > "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > And the population is increasing at 10% per year? Yeah, you got that one. But please explain to me how a mortality of 500,000 in the year 2002 is such a terrible thing in a population of 47,000,000. (That is a mortality rate of 1.06%, versus the US mortality rate of 0.9%.) Alex "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > But please explain to me how a mortality of 500,000 in > the year 2002 is such a terrible thing in a population of > 47,000,000. (That is a mortality rate of 1.06%, versus > the US mortality rate of 0.9%.) Many South Africans have told you that STATSA is not highly regarded. The reality is we are seeing many young adults dying. We are saddened by this fact. We would like this reality to go away, but manipulating facts is not doing the trick. Moira, the Faerie Godmother > "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > saddened by this fact. We would like this reality to go away, but > manipulating facts is not doing the trick. It would appear that Alex believes that all deaths in South Africa are registered. This is not the case and even if STATSA figures were correct, in so far as recorded births and deaths are concerned, the overall population figure is based on a very flawed census. Mark Richardson "Mark Richardson" <mwmarho@iafrica.com> wrote in message > "Moira de Swardt" <moira.deswardt@wol.co.za> wrote in message > > The reality is we are seeing many young adults dying. We are > > saddened by this fact. We would like this reality to go away, but > > manipulating facts is not doing the trick. > It would appear that Alex believes that all deaths in South Africa are > registered. This is not the case and even if STATSA figures were correct, in > so far as recorded births and deaths are concerned, the overall population > figure is based on a very flawed census. Alex seems to have some axe to grind, proving to himself, if no-one else, that there is no such thing as HIV and if there is that it doesn't harm humans. Moira, the Faerie Godmother > Alex seems to have some axe to grind, proving to himself, if no-one > else, that there is no such thing as HIV and if there is that it > doesn't harm humans. Oh, horsepukey. I've never said any such thing. Not that I object to anyone saying that of course, that's their own opinion. I'm not a microbiologist or a virologist, so anything about that is pretty much over my head right now. However, it doesn't take a whole lot to see that this so-called HIV epidemic makes no sense statistically. Or that the extent of this "epidemic" is very easy to overstate. Or that misdiagnosis is very, very easy. Alex snip,,, >However, it doesn't take a whole lot to see that this so-called >HIV epidemic makes no sense statistically. Apparently it doesn't take much for you given your penchant for misinterpreting data and coming up with distortions on statistics. George M. Carter >> Alex seems to have some axe to grind, proving to himself, if no-one >> else, that there is no such thing as HIV and if there is that it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Alex Arsehole Injected Death Sentence (AIDS) Alex, So you didn't like your doctors diagnosis! Because you can't comprehend statistics, you broadcast that there's no HIV problem at all. Maybe HIV and AIDS are unrelated, or maybe there just isn't such a thing as AIDS - that's what they believe in Swaziland where 40.01353% of the population are infected (lack of education has something to do with this train of thought). When you die prematurely we'll all know you died of AIDS. William A. Bong (my own name) > Oh, horsepukey. I've never said any such thing. Not that I object > to anyone saying that of course, that's their own opinion. > I'm not a microbiologist or a virologist, so anything about that > is pretty much over my head right now. My God Alex the first honest piece you've posted. > However, it doesn't take a whole lot to see that this so-called > HIV epidemic makes no sense statistically. Or that the extent > of this "epidemic" is very easy to overstate. Or that misdiagnosis > is very, easy. It is very easy to prove anything if your elementary arithmetic is so bad that YOUR figures are 10,6 instead of 0.09 and you don't see it at a glance. Your comprehension of anything that involved maths is extremely questionable. Unfortunately statistics is nothing other than making figures prove a required theory. There are many elements you ignore in your effort to prove Aids is overstated. It is estimated that many of our Northern neighbours especially Nigerians and Zimbabweans have settled here and acquired SA citizenship. Yet you have not even factored any percentile into your questionable figures to compensate for these numbers which will further corrupt an already erroneous theory. A more responsible approach may have been to go to the Aids clinics in the townships and ask how they view the epidemic, whether they believe it is over stated. Which would obviously beg the question where do the thousands of people come from who attend these clinics. And why do the staff believe the majority of sufferers will not come forward but hide their illness for fear of being shunned. If there is no problem where do all these people come from Alex ?? And why are the undertakers in the townships so busy.? These questions of course have no place in your little theory. Richard > Alex >> Alex seems to have some axe to grind, proving to himself, if no-one >> else, that there is no such thing as HIV and if there is that it >> doesn't harm humans. > > Or that the extent of this "epidemic" is very easy to overstate. And then just as easy to "understate" !!!!! >Or that misdiagnosis is very, very easy. And "misdiagnosis" could go either way ! > Alex The AIDS on the Brain is really effecting your judgment in a bad way - seek help fast. William A. Bong (my own nym) >> Alex seems to have some axe to grind, proving to himself, if no-one >> else, that there is no such thing as HIV and if there is that it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Alex Comment: Here is why it's more likely to be "understated" and "overstated". ____________________________ http://www.avert.org/safricastats.htm People whose deaths are caused by HIV are not killed by the virus alone, but HIV should be recorded as an underlying cause if it "initiated the chain of morbid events leading directly to death". In other words, if someone contracts tuberculosis and dies from it because their immune system has been weakened by HIV then HIV should be included among the underlying causes. The MRC article claims that in many cases, this does not happen; instead, the doctor records only the immediate cause of death such as tuberculosis or respiratory infection. This could be because the doctor does not know the deceased person's HIV status. Alternatively, they may seek to conceal HIV infection to spare stigmatisation of relatives, or to avoid invalidating life insurance claims. As The Lancet notes, authorities are largely to blame: "Social stigma associated with HIV/AIDS, tacitly perpetuated by the Government's reluctance to bring the crisis into the open and face it head on, prevents many from speaking out about the causes of illness and deaths of loved ones and leads doctors to record uncontroversial diagnoses on death certificates.... The South African Government needs to stop being defensive and show backbone and courage to acknowledge and seriously tackle the HIV/AIDS crisis of its people."2 >> Alex seems to have some axe to grind, proving to himself, if no-one >> else, that there is no such thing as HIV and if there is that it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Alex Comment: Here is why it's more likely to be "understated" and "overstated". ____________________________ http://www.avert.org/safricastats.htm People whose deaths are caused by HIV are not killed by the virus alone, but HIV should be recorded as an underlying cause if it "initiated the chain of morbid events leading directly to death". In other words, if someone contracts tuberculosis and dies from it because their immune system has been weakened by HIV then HIV should be included among the underlying causes. The MRC article claims that in many cases, this does not happen; instead, the doctor records only the immediate cause of death such as tuberculosis or respiratory infection. This could be because the doctor does not know the deceased person's HIV status. Alternatively, they may seek to conceal HIV infection to spare stigmatisation of relatives, or to avoid invalidating life insurance claims. As The Lancet notes, authorities are largely to blame: "Social stigma associated with HIV/AIDS, tacitly perpetuated by the Government's reluctance to bring the crisis into the open and face it head on, prevents many from speaking out about the causes of illness and deaths of loved ones and leads doctors to record uncontroversial diagnoses on death certificates.... The South African Government needs to stop being defensive and show backbone and courage to acknowledge and seriously tackle the HIV/AIDS crisis of its people."2 >> Alex seems to have some axe to grind, proving to himself, if no-one >> else, that there is no such thing as HIV and if there is that it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Alex http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4507049 A new report from South Africa shows a 57 percent increase in AIDS deaths over the last five years. But there is continuing debate over the real number of AIDS deaths in South Africa, where social stigma keeps people from listing AIDS on death certificates. http://www.statssa.gov.za/news_archive/3feb2005_1.asp The data cannot provide the number of deaths due to HIV/Aids. It does, however, provide information on the number of cases where HIV/Aids is directly recorded on the form as the cause of death. http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1410619,00.html South Africa told to admit size of Aids crisis The South African government is still in denial over the scale of the Aids crisis, it is alleged today following revelations that the true death toll is three times the official figures. Researchers backed by the South African Medical Research Council have discovered that most Aids deaths are misclassified because of the stigma attached to the disease. Death certificates omit any mention of HIV/Aids, giving the final HIV-related infection such as tuberculosis or pneumonia as the cause of death. Hey creepie, Stop using my e-mail address. I fully understand that you want to be me, because it must suck being you. Alex > >> Alex seems to have some axe to grind, proving to himself, if no-one > >> else, that there is no such thing as HIV and if there is that it [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > giving the final HIV-related infection such as tuberculosis or pneumonia as > the cause of death. > > The reality is we are seeing many young adults dying. We are > > saddened by this fact. We would like this reality to go away, but > > manipulating facts is not doing the trick. > > It would appear that Alex believes that all deaths in South Africa are > registered. I wouldn't say that for any country, but I do believe that they are coming closer and closer to complete coverage every year. Do you have evidence otherwise? Alex > "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Many South Africans have told you that STATSA is not highly > regarded. What does that mean? You don't like the data, so you say... well, there are people who say South Africa's premier statistics agency is "not highly regarded", so I'm going to ignore the data they collect? Based on what? Where do you find better data? > The reality is we are seeing many young adults dying. How many? And why? You do not rely on Stats SA's data, but you believe the highly suspect (unrepresentative, narrow based) data collected by the WHO/UNAIDS, and I assume you also reject the less narrow based and actually represntative data collected by the CDC and their DHS surveys? > We are > saddened by this fact. We would like this reality to go away, but > manipulating facts is not doing the trick. What trick? What reality? If you don't even know how many people are dying in South Africa, how do you know there is a big problem? Also, why is Stats SA such a bad organisation? They seem to me to be pretty professional. Perhaps you would like to list the problems with them? Alex "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > "Moira de Swardt" <moira.deswardt@wol.co.za> schreef in bericht > > Many South Africans have told you that STATSA is not highly > > regarded. > What does that mean? You don't like the data, so you say... > well, there are people who say South Africa's premier statistics > agency is "not highly regarded", so I'm going to ignore the data > they collect? Why not Google the official problems they've had? > Based on what? Where do you find better data? There is no better data. > > The reality is we are seeing many young adults dying. > How many? And why? Well, I've seen about fifteen young adults die of AIDS related illnesses. That's an awful lot of young adults to know who have died of health related problems. In days of yore it would be rare to know of a young adult who had died of health related problems and when they did die it wasn't of TB or pneumonia, but heart disease, diabetes, cancer or a rare allergy to medication or asthma. Also "young" was often in ones thirties and forties whereas young is now the twenties as well. > You do not rely on Stats SA's data, but you believe > the highly suspect (unrepresentative, narrow based) > data collected by the WHO/UNAIDS, and I assume > you also reject the less narrow based and actually > represntative data collected by the CDC and their > DHS surveys? > > We are > > saddened by this fact. We would like this reality to go away, but > > manipulating facts is not doing the trick. > What trick? What reality? The reality is that people we know and love and care for are dying of HIV related illnesses. The trick would be for this reality to go away. We'd like that. We really would. > If you don't even know how many > people are dying in South Africa, how do you know there is > a big problem? Because we are seeing the results of the problem in our own active experience. HIV is not an urban legend. It is something which is happening in our own social circles, at work, at home. When I first became involved in AIDS work in the eighties the only people I knew with HIV were gay men. In the nineties I knew a few black people with HIV. In 1996 I met my first white, heterosexual, non-prostitute, non-drug-using female with HIV. I met her HIV positive husband, her HIV positive child. By then two of my intimate circle of gay friends had died of HIV. I have now seen dozens of colleagues, friends, domestic workers of friends, acquaintances from church etc. die of AIDS. In that same time I have seen only a few people (i.e. the "normal" number of people that would die in the "normal" course and scope of life's experiences) die of the traditional killers like motor vehicle accidents, violence, non-HIV related deaths, etc. And I work as a minister of religion where I get to deal with these kind of deaths. > Also, why is Stats SA such a bad organisation? They seem > to me to be pretty professional. Perhaps you would like to > list the problems with them? Why not just go online and look at the historical problems? You are aware that we are unsure how many people are living in South Africa? That our census taking is flawed? That our reporting of births is flawed? That our reporting of deaths is flawed? That our Department of Home Affairs is corrupt? That our Department of Health is incompetent? Etc. But don't take my word for it. Check it out for yourself. The evidence is overwhelming. Moira, the Faerie Godmother > "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > dozens of colleagues, friends, domestic workers of friends, > acquaintances from church etc. die of AIDS. If anybody wanted to know the truth, they'd only have to apply for insurance. The paranoia there has to be seen to be believed - they won't give anybody life insurance without an AIDS test carried out by on of their own people! -- When people ask me what I've got against pictures, I can only reply, 'What have you got against the well'- Quinten Crisp, Resident Alien * TagZilla 0.057 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org > "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Health is incompetent? Etc. But don't take my word for it. Check > it out for yourself. The evidence is overwhelming. The problem Moira, is that you also dismissed anything written in The Guardian out of hand because they were leftwing. I haven't seen a single issue raised against Statistics South Africa, or why for instance their collection of death notification forms would be wrong (which is what we're talking about). You implored me to google Stats SA, so I did. (I googled "statistics south africa" AND corruption.) http://www.statssa.gov.za/news_archive/30jul2004_2.asp " A Public Service Commission (PSC) investigation into the financial affairs of Pali Lehohla, Statistician-General and head of Statistics South Africa, has found no evidence of financial impropriety. Allegations that Lehohla might have enriched himself by receiving 'kick-backs' in return for favouring specific suppliers of information technology solutions were made by a small group of staff at Statistics South Africa, who submitted a memorandum of complaint to the Minister of Finance. Lehohla himself requested the PSC to investigate these allegations. " From the links page of the World Criminal Justice Library Network at Rutgers University: http://newark.rutgers.edu/~wcjlen/WCJ/links/safrica.html " Statistics South Africa www.csvr.org.za/ www.nrf.ac.za/sada/statssa.html " Statistical reports and publications that include crime statistics can be ordered here. Demographic and other statistics are available online. " http://www-sul.stanford.edu/depts/ssrg/africa/southafrica/rsapolice.html " Statistics South Africa (formerly the South African Central Statistical Service) Official site. Has the statistics in brief (housing, literacy, tourism, labour, agriculture, mining, trade, prices, etc.), special reports (labour, electricity, mining, demography, medical, crimes, transport, tourism), victims of crimes survey, unemployment report, earning/spending by households, gender statistics. http://www.statssa.gov.za " *************************** So Moira, one example of the head of Statistis South Africa being CLEARED of *allegations* of any financial wrongdoing, and several American university websites referring to data collected by Statistics South Africa as references. Perhaps you yourself would like to emphasize what you think is wrong with Statistics South Africa? What was the problem with data from Statistics South Africa again? Alex "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > " A Public Service Commission (PSC) investigation into the financial affairs > of Pali Lehohla, Statistician-General and head of Statistics South Africa, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a memorandum of complaint to the Minister of Finance. Lehohla himself > requested the PSC to investigate these allegations. " > So Moira, one example of the head of Statistis South Africa being CLEARED > of *allegations* of any financial wrongdoing, and several American university > websites referring to data collected by Statistics South Africa as references. > Perhaps you yourself would like to emphasize what you think is wrong > with Statistics South Africa? What was the problem with data from > Statistics South Africa again? Do you think financial impropriety is the only form of corruption? And, by the way, I happen to consider cars, cellphones etc. that went "missing" as theft even if no-one was convicted for that. But the collection of the actual statistics ... Moira, the Faerie Godmother > "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Do you think financial impropriety is the only form of corruption? MOIRA, YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAYS THERE IS "SOMETHING" WRONG WITH STATS SA. If you had anything to substantiate that idea, you would have presented it by now. Therefore, I have to assume that your ephemeral charges against Stats SA are as baseless as your out of hand dismissal of The Guardian. I will assume that you have no evidence whatsoever that there is something wrong with the data from Stats SA. Alex "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > "Moira de Swardt" <moira.deswardt@wol.co.za> schreef in bericht > > Do you think financial impropriety is the only form of corruption? > MOIRA, YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAYS THERE IS "SOMETHING" > WRONG WITH STATS SA. > If you had anything to substantiate that idea, you would have > presented it by now. Therefore, I have to assume that your > ephemeral charges against Stats SA are as baseless as your > out of hand dismissal of The Guardian. > I will assume that you have no evidence whatsoever that > there is something wrong with the data from Stats SA. I posted what was wrong with the data. I told you to check my facts. I'm not sure what article from The Guardian I am supposed to have dismissed, but if it was one posted by you, possibly I did dismiss it. Now I'm bored with your argumentativeness about HIV and AIDS so I'm discontinuing this thread. I will respond to other threads, if only to let lurkers know that you are talking drivel. Moira, the Faerie Godmother > "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > > "Moira de Swardt" <moira.deswardt@wol.co.za> schreef in bericht [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > have dismissed, but if it was one posted by you, possibly I did > dismiss it. Moira, you have NOT stated what was wrong with Stats SA OR it's data. Instead, you want me to check google to find information that supports your claims. That is not the same as supporting your own arguments. As you may have noticed, I ALWAYS supply information to support my arguments. I don't ask you to do so for me. Alex >> "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message >> > "Moira de Swardt" <moira.deswardt@wol.co.za> schreef in bericht [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > own arguments. As you may have noticed, I ALWAYS supply > information to support my arguments. But sadly in most cases the data you site is either distorted, misinterpreted, or just plain factually inaccurate, that's why no one takes you seriously Alex. Gary Stein > >> "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > >> > "Moira de Swardt" <moira.deswardt@wol.co.za> schreef in bericht [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > misinterpreted, or just plain factually inaccurate, that's why no one takes > you seriously Alex. Really? What a pathetic ad hominem and (of course) empty statement. I was under the impression that you simply couldn't form a coherent argument. You also didn't answer Moira's contention that there is "something wrong" with Statistics South Africa, Gary. Alex > > > Moira, you have NOT stated what was wrong with Stats SA OR > > > it's data. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Really? What a pathetic ad hominem and (of course) empty statement. And, I'll add to that - empty, meaningless and just slightly misleading statements are your stock and trade. The reason is that you simply cannot support the existence of massive and "devastating" HIV epidemic in Africa. You can't do it. That alone should say enough. Well over 20 years after this "devastating" epidemic, a disease that has a time from infection to death of 10 years, and you cannot show any dent in population growth in Africa. Even though the MRC in the UK states that women with HIV infection only have half the fertility women without HIV infection have. Not a dent. So, do you want to wheeze some more personal attacks my way, little Gary? You are the one who has no credibility. Alex > "devastating" epidemic, a disease that has a time from infection to > death of 10 years. > > Alex You don't have much longer then do you AIDS on the Brain Alex. William A. Bong (my own name) > > "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > > > "Moira de Swardt" <moira.deswardt@wol.co.za> schreef in bericht > Instead, you want me to check google to find information that > supports your claims. That is not the same as supporting your > own arguments. As you may have noticed, I ALWAYS supply > information to support my arguments. BWwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhHH For that Alex you win the laugh of the day award, not bad for a moron that can't add up. Richard snip... >But please explain to me how a mortality of 500,000 in >the year 2002 is such a terrible thing in a population of >47,000,000. (That is a mortality rate of 1.06%, versus >the US mortality rate of 0.9%.) Really? Depends. If a substantial proportion are young adults of child-bearing and working age--and when doctors, teachers, miners, parents, farmers, nurses, politicians, soldiers, truckers, sex workers and others are dying, it's more than a tragedy. It is a threat to global security. It is fiscally, ethically and geopolitically imperative that all further efforts and extreme urgency be applied to eliminating usurious debts, bolstering infrastructure, raising healthcare worker wages, making condoms available with plenty of information/skits/plays, assuring access to good generic medications as well as multivitamins and nutrition and clean water and otherwise doing every good and needful thing to slow the spread and treat people with HIV/AIDS. The effect in the west of such comprehensive programs has been to save millions of years of life. George M. Carter ** Session 35 Oral Abstracts Infectious Complications: Prevention and Treatment Friday, 10 am - 12:30 pm Presentation Time: 11:45 am Ballroom A 143LB 2 Million Years of Life Saved: The Survival Benefits of AIDS Therapy in the United States Rochelle P. Walensky*1,2, A Paltiel3, E Losina4, L Mercincavage4, B Schackman5, P Sax2, M Weinstein6, and K Freedberg6 1Harvard Med Sch, Boston, MA, USA; 2Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; 3Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA; 4Boston Univ, MA, USA; 5Weill Med Coll, Cornell Univ, New York, NY, USA; and 6Harvard Sch of Publ Hlth, Boston, MA, USA Background: Our objective was to estimate the cumulative clinical benefit of AIDS-related opportunistic infection prophylaxis and highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in the United States. Methods: We used published estimates to derive the number of newly diagnosed adult AIDS patients receiving care in the United States from l989 to 2002. We considered 5 life-prolonging interventions and the years each was recommended as standard of care: PCP and MAC prophylaxis (1989 and 1993), HAART (1996), HAART-2 (2 sequential effective regimens, 1998), and HAART-3 (3 sequential effective regimens, 2000). To ensure conservative estimates, we included only newly diagnosed AIDS patients in care and assumed they received only the care that was standard in the year of diagnosis. Per person survival benefits of each intervention were estimated using the cost-effectiveness of preventing AIDS complications (CEPAC) model, a widely published computer simulation of HIV disease. Sensitivity analyses included varying the number of AIDS patients in care (63% in the base case), adding the benefits of zidovudine (AZT) for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission (1994), and varying HAART efficacy. Results: [see http://www.retroconference.org/2005/cd/Abstracts/25729.htm for table] AZT for prevention of mother-to-child transmission averted approximately 2860 infant infections, adding another 186,790 years of life. Had all pregnant women received AZT, the survival benefit would have increased to 277,150 years. Had all diagnosed AIDS patients been in care, total survival benefits would have increased to 2,828,930 years. Improving viral load suppression rates of all HAART regimens to 90% at 48 weeks would have increased total survival benefits to 2,830,460 years. Conclusions: Progress in HIV care has saved nearly 2 million years of life in the United States since 1989. The per person benefits far exceed those conferred by treatment of other chronic diseases and highlight the importance of HIV diagnosis, linkage to effective care, and continued research in HIV therapeutics. > snip... > >But please explain to me how a mortality of 500,000 in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and others are dying, it's more than a tragedy. It is a threat to > global security. Hardly. IF is the big qualifyer, but here is why this isn't so. Who is taking care of the 2.61% of annual population growth among the African population of South Africa? If people of reproductive age were dying, not only would you see no huge population growth, you would see a decline in population. http://www.statssa.gov.za/census01/html/RSAPrimary.pdf From Tables A and C, the Black population of South Africa: 1996 Census: 31 127 631 2001 Census: 35 416 166 That is an increase of (1.13772611) 13.77% in 5 years. That's an annual increase of (1.13772611 ^ 1/5) 2.61%. So if some disease was wiping out the reproductive section of society, how come there is an annual population growth of 2.61%? > It is fiscally, ethically and geopolitically imperative that all > further efforts and extreme urgency be applied to eliminating usurious [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The effect in the west of such comprehensive programs has been to save > millions of years of life. > Results: > [see [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > highlight the importance of HIV diagnosis, linkage to effective care, > and continued research in HIV therapeutics. Well I agree with that. I don't see how people can claim there is a massive HIV epidemic in South Africa and that healthcare resources have to be re-routed from other healthcare just to treat HIV infection, but at the same time, say please pay us 1 billion per year (or how much SA owes the IMF and World Bank). If it really was an international emergency, they would say: stop paying international debt, until you have sorted this out. Or just forever - much of South Africa's debt is odious anyway, because it was built up under Apartheid. Alex >> snip... > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > AIDS Alex Arsehole Injected Death Sentence (AIDS) Alex, So you're determined to show that you also know fuckall about monetary affairs as well as stats. William A. Bong (my own name) >snip >> Really? Depends. If a substantial proportion are young adults of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Hardly. IF is the big qualifyer, but here is why this isn't so. It is so....and your explanation is really pathetic. >Who is taking care of the 2.61% of annual population >growth among the African population of South Africa? Presuming for the moment this is correct, HIV infection doesn't mean sterility nor does it preclude having children. The efforts now are to a) prevent infections; b) prevent mother-to-child transmission; c) help mothers and fathers stay alive and well to raise their children. The numbers of orphans from deaths due to AIDS are a horrific problem throughout Africa. But you don't care. It's all just a big old game for you. George M. Carter > >snip > >> Really? Depends. If a substantial proportion are young adults of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Presuming for the moment this is correct, HIV infection doesn't mean > sterility nor does it preclude having children. Now that _is_ pathetic. We are not just talking about "HIV infection" but the inevitable AIDS, remember? For HIV, fill in cancer. Do you really believe that if say 20% of the population (mainly in the reproductive age groups) had cancer, that would have no effect on population growth? Then tell me again how all these AIDS activists who state that the population of Africa is collapsing because of AIDS are wrong? What happened to the infamous Kenyan villages that supposedly were wiped out by AIDS? Why didn't HIV have an impact on population growth in Kenya? Unless you want to argue that AIDS is not a deadly disease, of course. > The efforts now are to a) prevent infections; b) prevent > mother-to-child transmission; c) help mothers and fathers stay alive [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > throughout Africa. > But you don't care. It's all just a big old game for you. Oh, the pathos of it all. 20 years is a long time to stay emotional. And it is an even longer time to not ask questions. Alex STATS SA ?- you have to be joking!! Bart > Death notification forms data from Stats SA: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > growth of (44.8/40.6 ^ 1/5) 1.10345 or 10.3% per year. > http://www.statssa.gov.za/census01/html/default.asp >2) The population of South Africa was 40.6 million in >1996, and 40.8 million in 2001. That is an annual population >growth of (44.8/40.6 ^ 1/5) 1.10345 or 10.3% per year. 44.8/40.6 = 1.10345 44.8/40.6 ^ 1/5 = 1.01988 That's 2% per year, not 10% per year. If statistics were dynamite you'd blow off your hands.  SignatureDavid Canzi > >2) The population of South Africa was 40.6 million in > >1996, and 40.8 million in 2001. That is an annual population [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That's 2% per year, not 10% per year. Ok, I screwed up with that one. However, even you will have to admit, that for the year 2002, 500,000 deaths is pretty low for a population of 47 million. 500,000/47,000,000 = 0.016 or 1.06%. That's the South African mortality rate, and in no way does it point to massive deaths from HIV. The USA mortality rate is 0.9%. Alex >> >2) The population of South Africa was 40.6 million in >> >1996, and 40.8 million in 2001. That is an annual population [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > have to admit, that for the year 2002, 500,000 deaths is > pretty low for a population of 47 million. Ok AIDS on the Brain Alex, what are the correct figures then? Or, are we all just imagining that there's an AIDS problem in South Africa when in actual fact there is no AIDS in South Africa at all - like Mbeki that's doesn't know anyone that died of AIDS (he didn't know Mandela's son). William A. Bong (my own name) "Bong" <william.a.bong@mweb.co.uk> wrote in message > Ok AIDS on the Brain Alex, what are the correct figures then? > Or, are we all just imagining that there's an AIDS problem in South Africa > when in actual fact there is no AIDS in South Africa at all - like Mbeki > that's doesn't know anyone that died of AIDS (he didn't know Mandela's son). He made that statement before Mandela's son died. But even then it was not plausible. Moira, the Faerie Godmother snip >Ok, I screwed up with that one. However, even you will >have to admit, that for the year 2002, 500,000 deaths is >pretty low for a population of 47 million. Really? Depends. If a substantial proportion are young adults of child-bearing and working age--and when doctors, teachers, miners, parents, farmers, nurses, politicians, soldiers, truckers, sex workers and others are dying, it's more than a tragedy. It is a threat to global security. It is fiscally, ethically and geopolitically imperative that all further efforts and extreme urgency be applied to eliminating usurious debts, bolstering infrastructure, raising healthcare worker wages, making condoms available with plenty of information/skits/plays, assuring access to good generic medications as well as multivitamins and nutrition and clean water and otherwise doing every good and needful thing to slow the spread and treat people with HIV/AIDS. The effect in the west of such comprehensive programs has been to save millions of years of life. George M. Carter ** Session 35 Oral Abstracts Infectious Complications: Prevention and Treatment Friday, 10 am - 12:30 pm Presentation Time: 11:45 am Ballroom A 143LB 2 Million Years of Life Saved: The Survival Benefits of AIDS Therapy in the United States Rochelle P. Walensky*1,2, A Paltiel3, E Losina4, L Mercincavage4, B Schackman5, P Sax2, M Weinstein6, and K Freedberg6 1Harvard Med Sch, Boston, MA, USA; 2Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; 3Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA; 4Boston Univ, MA, USA; 5Weill Med Coll, Cornell Univ, New York, NY, USA; and 6Harvard Sch of Publ Hlth, Boston, MA, USA Background: Our objective was to estimate the cumulative clinical benefit of AIDS-related opportunistic infection prophylaxis and highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in the United States. Methods: We used published estimates to derive the number of newly diagnosed adult AIDS patients receiving care in the United States from l989 to 2002. We considered 5 life-prolonging interventions and the years each was recommended as standard of care: PCP and MAC prophylaxis (1989 and 1993), HAART (1996), HAART-2 (2 sequential effective regimens, 1998), and HAART-3 (3 sequential effective regimens, 2000). To ensure conservative estimates, we included only newly diagnosed AIDS patients in care and assumed they received only the care that was standard in the year of diagnosis. Per person survival benefits of each intervention were estimated using the cost-effectiveness of preventing AIDS complications (CEPAC) model, a widely published computer simulation of HIV disease. Sensitivity analyses included varying the number of AIDS patients in care (63% in the base case), adding the benefits of zidovudine (AZT) for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission (1994), and varying HAART efficacy. Results: [see http://www.retroconference.org/2005/cd/Abstracts/25729.htm for table] AZT for prevention of mother-to-child transmission averted approximately 2860 infant infections, adding another 186,790 years of life. Had all pregnant women received AZT, the survival benefit would have increased to 277,150 years. Had all diagnosed AIDS patients been in care, total survival benefits would have increased to 2,828,930 years. Improving viral load suppression rates of all HAART regimens to 90% at 48 weeks would have increased total survival benefits to 2,830,460 years. Conclusions: Progress in HIV care has saved nearly 2 million years of life in the United States since 1989. The per person benefits far exceed those conferred by treatment of other chronic diseases and highlight the importance of HIV diagnosis, linkage to effective care, and continued research in HIV therapeutics. > snip > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and others are dying, it's more than a tragedy. It is a threat to > global security. If that was the case, then all the evidence is... that it's just not happening. Not last century, and not this century either. If all the people you mentioned were dying, they would also have stopped reproducing. 1) A mere 25 years ago, the population of South Africa was 27,000,000. Today, it is 47,000,000. Ok, here is a good question (capital letters for emphasis): NAME ME ONE (1) COUNTRY IN AFRICA, THAT HAS BEEN DEPOPULATED BY ANYTHING - ANYTHING WILL DO, BUT AIDS IS OK TOO. Or, I will make it even easier. NAME ME ONE (1) AFRICAN COUNTRY THAT HAS A LOWER POPULATION TODAY, THAN IT HAD 10 YEARS AGO. Alex snip >Or, I will make it even easier. NAME ME ONE (1) AFRICAN >COUNTRY THAT HAS A LOWER POPULATION TODAY, >THAN IT HAD 10 YEARS AGO. I don't know the population statistics of all African countries. But during the period of time that people have HIV, many have had children. And if 60-90% of the adult population does NOT have HIV in many countries, the effect on population would not appear as rapidly as you appear to expect. I grant you these are fine questions to ask and I do not have the answers. Haven't researched it. So I hope others will be able to provide insights. But that doesn't preclude the fact HIV exists and causes AIDS. Might it be that the prevalence is lower in some countries? I sure as hell hope so! I'm pretty busy now, but if I get the time, you can bet I'll review some of the data. But you can also be sure I want trust your interpretations of those data (any more than you will mine). Eh. So it goes. George M. Carter > snip > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > many countries, the effect on population would not appear as rapidly > as you appear to expect. Ok, then let me answer my own question: not one African country has a lower population today than it had in 1995. Alex >> snip > Ok, then let me answer my own question: not one African > country has a lower population today than it had in 1995. > > Alex Talking to yourself now AIDS on the Brain Alex ! .......Bwahahahahahahahaha 1995...... ? Is that when you were infected ? William A. Bong (my own name) >> snip >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Ok, then let me answer my own question: not one African >country has a lower population today than it had in 1995. First, providing evidence for the statement is important. I don't trust you. I would be surprised if this were true in Rwanda, Congo, and a few other places. Second, presuming it is true, it does not mean that HIV does not exist or cause AIDS. It *may* suggest that the pandemic is not as large in some places as estimated--this is good news!! But it hardly obviates the horrific reality of HIV, AIDS, war, famine. Put it this way. You could use this lame argument to say famine doesn't exist or is never fatal. Ethiopia has a higher population than in 1995, ergo famine does not exist? George M. Carter > >> snip > >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > First, providing evidence for the statement is important. I don't > trust you. I don't trust you. That's a particularly stupid thing to say, but for now, I'll ignore the implications of such stupidity. > I would be surprised if this were true in Rwanda, Congo, > and a few other places. Actually you needn't be surprised. All you had to do, was visit the following pages: http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum?cty=rw Population of Rwanda (in millions): 1980 5.139 1990 6.924 2000 7.507 2004 8.239 http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum?cty=cg Population of the DRC (in millions) 1980 28.129 1990 37.969 2000 51.810 2004 58.318 http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum?cty=et Population of Ethiopia (in millions) 1980 36.036 1990 48.197 2000 64.690 2004 71.337 > Second, presuming it is true, it does not mean that HIV does not exist > or cause AIDS. It *may* suggest that the pandemic is not as large in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > doesn't exist or is never fatal. Ethiopia has a higher population than > in 1995, ergo famine does not exist? You will say that it had no noticable impact on a booming population growth. For Ethiopia and Somalia, remember that famine only occurred in specific parts of the country. Alex Here the results : 1980 growth/y1990 growth/y2000 growth/y2004 Rwanda 5139 3,03 6924 0,81 7507 2,35 8239 Congo 28129 3,05 37969 3,16 51810 3 58318 Ethiopie 36036 2,95 48197 2,99 64690 2,48 71337 > http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum?cty=rw > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Alex "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > If all the people you mentioned were dying, they would also > have stopped reproducing. HIV does not affect fertility. At least not until the very late stages. What pregnancy does to HIV positive women is that it reduces their expected lifespan still further. It presents the possibility of HIV positive children. > 1) A mere 25 years ago, the population of South Africa was > 27,000,000. Today, it is 47,000,000. And the old South African stats were more or less reliable than the new South African stats? Moira, the Faerie Godmother > "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > reduces their expected lifespan still further. It presents the > possibility of HIV positive children. This piece by Amanda Ross of the Swiss Tropical Institute (and the UK Medical Research Council) says different. Basically, the following boils down to this: " Overall, the odds of a woman with HIV being pregnant are around half those for HIV-negative women. " Seems to me that HIV should have an effect on fertility after all. Alex To quote in full: Subject: Where have all the babies gone? HIV and fertility in Uganda Where have all the babies gone? HIV and fertility in Uganda Women with HIV tend to have fewer babies. Are they less likely to get pregnant? Or do they have a greater risk of miscarriage or stillbirth? Researchers at the UK Medical Research Council Programme on AIDS in Uganda tried to answer these questions by following a group of 191 women in the south-west of the country. They offered routine clinic visits every three months to 92 HIV- positive and 99 negative women over nearly 11 years. During this time, there were 216 pregnancies in 104 women. Analysing data, including HIV status and the incidence and outcomes of pregnancies, the researchers report that: 40 percent of the HIV-positive women had died by the end of the study. The frequency of sexual intercourse decreases with advancing HIV disease. Overall, the odds of a woman with HIV being pregnant are around half those for HIV-negative women. The likelihood of pregnancy decreases as the disease worsens, whether this is measured by clinical stage, CD4 count (the immune status of a patient), time from becoming HIV-positive or time before an AIDS diagnosis. There are very few pregnancies in the advanced stages of the disease. There were 183 live births, 21 spontaneous abortions and 12 stillbirths or early neonatal deaths. HIV-infected women have a higher risk of foetal loss, even at the earliest stages of HIV infection. This study shows that fertility decreases from the earliest stage of HIV infection, due to fewer pregnancies and increased foetal loss. This information will help to predict numbers of orphans due to AIDS and the rates of HIV infection in children. It also shows that the estimation of general HIV rates from antenatal clinic (ANC) data is not as straightforward as it seems. If HIV-positive women have lower fertility, they are less likely to attend ANC, and so these data may underestimate HIV rates in the general population. However, other studies have shown that women with lower fertility are more likely to become HIV-infected. Possible explanations include illness in their partners, other sexually transmitted infections, or the cultural pressure for women to have children in many African societies may push them towards more risky behaviour, such as having extra sexual partners. Contributor(s): Amanda Ross Source(s): `HIV-1 disease progression and fertility: the incidence of recognized pregnancy and pregnancy outcome in Uganda', AIDS 18: 799-804, by A. Ross, et al, 2004 HINARI subscribers can access the full-text article here. More information. Funded by: UK Medical Research Council; UK Department for International Development id21 Research Highlight: 23 February 2005 Further Information: Amanda Ross Department of Public Health and Epidemiology Swiss Tropical Institute Socinstrasse 57 CH-4002 Basel Switzerland Tel: +41 61 284 81 12 Fax: +41 61 271 79 51 Email: amanda.ross @unibas.ch >1) A mere 25 years ago, the population of South Africa was >27,000,000. Today, it is 47,000,000. And the population of the "independent homelands" was not counted. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > >1) A mere 25 years ago, the population of South Africa was > >27,000,000. Today, it is 47,000,000. > > And the population of the "independent homelands" was not counted. Actually, I was referring to title of the Belgian book "27 million South Africans", which also coincides with the US Census Bureau numbers of 29 million (rounded down) in 1980, 38 million in 1990 and 44 million in 2000. So yes, all the population was taken into account. (Source: http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum?cty=sf ) Alex > 1) Data from Appendix E of Stats SA's report on > death notification forms, which can be found here: http://www.statssa.gov.za/Publications/publicationsearch.asp?PN=fqtqz.t&PM=&PY=&PS=1 > 2) The population of South Africa was 40.6 million in > 1996, and 40.8 million in 2001. That is an annual population > growth of (44.8/40.6 ^ 1/5) 1.10345 or 10.3% per year. That's a population growth of 0.49% over 5 years or 0,09% per year which is 114 times lower than the figure you quoted. Not only do you quote an unreliable source to back up your stupid argument you don't know how to do simple arithmetic. Alex your argument is not only unfounded and totally erroneous you don't even do a satisfactory job of juggling simple figures to back it up. You are sir a plonker from the top draw go debate with Steve Hayes. Prat. Richard > http://www.statssa.gov.za/census01/html/default.asp
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.