 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / June 2006Botswana's Population Boom
I still haven't heard anyone explain to me how a country with 25% HIV infection, can also have a population growth of 2.6%. Wouldn't that many people infected with a deadly diseasy lead to a DECLINE in population, not one of the highest population growth rates in the world? In comparison, the US, with an official HIV infection rate of under 1%, has an annual population growth of around 1%. Alex ----- On average, the population of Botswana grew 2.6% in the years from 1991 to 2001. That is the same as surrounding countries. Botswana's population: 1991 1,326,796 (only 29,557 (2%) were non-citizens) (1) 2001 1.7 million (2) (1) www.gurn.info/topic/migrant/ledriz04.pdf http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:T8P8zK9fdrQJ:www.gurn.info/topic/migrant/led riz04.pdf+%22botswan a+population+census&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1 (2) As indicated above, however, these raised mortality rates are substantially below the rates that had been projected for the year 1997/98 - for example, see Botswana MFDP (2000a). In addition, early estimates for the total head count from the Botswana population census in 2001 indicate a total of almost 1.7 million. This is close to projections obtained before HIV/AIDS was accounted for, and is at the very high end of AIDS scenario projections produced prior to the census (most of these were in the range 1.4-1.6 million). In the case of Botswana, it may be that the period from infection to death is higher than was previously expected, but this may not apply across all of the Southern African countries http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:L-hCfZhbeCoJ:www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/W DSContentServer/WDSP /IB/2003/03/22/000094946_03031204140841/Rendered/PDF/multi0page.pdf+%22botswana+population+census&hl =en&ct=clnk&cd=2 Swaziland Population Census 1997 965,859 (1) 2001 1,173,900 (2) (1) http://www.ecs.co.sz/cca/cca_6.htm (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swaziland That is 21.5% in 4 years, or 4.9% per year. BOTSWANA 2001 CENSUS SHOWS MANY FEWER ORPHANS THAN PROJECTED Orphans The 2001 Population Census collected fairly detailed information on the parental status of children and the school attendance of orphans and nonorphans. In that year, the incidence of orphans was as follows: lost both parents 2.0 percent, maternal orphans 3.6 percent, and paternal orphans 9.6 percent. These percentages are much less than the 2001 estimated numbers and incidence of these three groups of orphans published in the high profile Children on the Brink publication (see Table 3)3. COB projections are generally relied upon in most analyses of the 'orphan crisis' in Africa. Table 3: Comparison of orphan population figures from Children on the Brink and Population Census, 2001 http://www.commissionforafrica.org/english/consultation/submissions/ro/sb-nov-de c04-265.pdf Census = 2001 Population Census COB = Children On The Brink Maternal Orphans (%) COB 10.6 Census 3.6 Paternal Orhans (%) COB 14 Census 9.6 Double Orphans (%) COB 9.5 Census 2.0 Census = 2001 Population Census COB = Children On The Brink MORE MERRIMENT TO FOLLOW: According to the 2003 Surveillance Report, there was a 51 percent increase in the number of people who tested HIV positive between 2000 and 2002 (from 6001 to 9081). However, the number of new AIDS cases that were reported fell by 37 percent (from 1141 to 717) during the same period, which is completely the opposite of what one would expect. Clearly, not all individuals with AIDS are being picked up and reported, but the public health care system in Botswana is well resourced with comprehensive coverage. >I still haven't heard anyone explain to me how a country >with 25% HIV infection, can also have a population growth >of 2.6%. Wouldn't that many people infected with a deadly >diseasy lead to a DECLINE in population, not one of the >highest population growth rates in the world? Not necessarily. That's been explained to you before. What it may do is slow the rate of increase of the population for some time before an actual decrease occurred. Lowered life expectancy would be anticipated first and this is seen. This has been explained to you before but you resolutely refuse, like any good denialist, to look at the facts. George M. Carter >>I still haven't heard anyone explain to me how a country >>with 25% HIV infection, can also have a population growth >>of 2.6%. Wouldn't that many people infected with a deadly >>diseasy lead to a DECLINE in population, not one of the >>highest population growth rates in the world? Gotta watch those onions, Alex. Something's repeating. B/ > I still haven't heard anyone explain to me how a country > with 25% HIV infection, can also have a population growth [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Alex > ----- No, because, besides rabbits, the African population is the biggest breeder in the world. "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > I still haven't heard anyone explain to me how a country > with 25% HIV infection, can also have a population growth [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > In comparison, the US, with an official HIV infection rate > of under 1%, has an annual population growth of around 1%. I've explained it to you before. HIV doesn't render one sterile. It is the sexually active people who are getting HIV and pregnant. A baby takes nine months from bonk to birth. HIV takes three to fifteen years to kill unless one intervenes with ARVs where the rate is considerably slowed. ARVs are available to some of the Botswana population. Now which part don't you understand? -- Moira de Swardt posting from Johannesburg, South Africa Remove the dot in my address to find me at home. > "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Now which part don't you understand? The part where the sexually reproductive getting sick and dying doesn't affect population growth. And I don't think you deny that at least these claims of depopulation were made? To quote the World Council of Churches: " No other calamity since the slave trade has depopulated Africa as AIDS has... " http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/mission/hiv-aids-e.html " Stephen Lewis, the United Nations envoy on AIDS in Africa, recently told The New York Times that two decades from now in southern Africa, "You are going to sense and see the loss of women. ... There will be portions of Africa [that] will be depopulated of women." " http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/webzine/newspoliticsact ivism/fean-041202-tr ansactional.xml " It is as if parts of Africa are being depopulated of its women, Lewis said, and to see the human wreckage is to believe "the world has lost its bearings." To watch a woman, a spectral figure with haunted eyes and protruded bones, writhe on the floor of her hut as her school-age children look on, is a hallucinatory experience, Lewis said. " http://www.stephenlewisfoundation.org/news_item.cfm?news=220&year=2005 African AIDs: The Genocide Of Inaction " If this unimaginable horror is not dealt with, and dealt with soon, Sub-Saharan Africa will be virtually depopulated within our lifetime. Such a result would be equivalent to a de facto genocide of black Africans. " http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/07/16/172708.php So what is it Moira: 1) High HIV/AIDS prevalence in the population has no impact on population growth OR 2) Africa is being depopulated by HIV/AIDS While you're at it, check out your compatriot's article in The Spectator: http://www.lewrockwell.com/spectator/spec192.html Cheers, Alex "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > "Moira de Swardt" <moira.ds@wol.co.za> schreef in bericht > > "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > > > I still haven't heard anyone explain to me how a country > > > with 25% HIV infection, can also have a population growth [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > In comparison, the US, with an official HIV infection rate > > > of under 1%, has an annual population growth of around 1%. > > I've explained it to you before. HIV doesn't render one sterile. > > It is the sexually active people who are getting HIV and pregnant. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > population. > > Now which part don't you understand? > The part where the sexually reproductive getting sick and dying doesn't affect population growth. It does affect population growth, but not to the point at which the population is decreasing. What is happening is that 25% of the sexually active people are getting HIV. They are also having children. Now you can go online and check how many children the average woman in Botswana produces. Swaziland, where I worked, has the highest rate of childbirth in the world, at 6.6 live births per woman (2001) so I presume Botswana is somewhat lower than that. Let's look at 3 live births per woman, just for argument sake. 25% of Botswana's women are HIV positive (let's make that 33% because the rates are slightly higher in younger women than in men). All Botswana's women together have an average of 3 children, including HIV positive ones. You do agree that HIV doesn't render one infertile? Some of the children born to HIV positive woman would have been born when their mothers were not yet HIV positive. Some of the children born to HIV positive women would be HIV positive and will probably die before their 15th birthday even with the luxury of ARVs, but certainly without them. Some of the children born to HIV positive women will be HIV negative. This figure is 40% - 60%, so let's take the upper figure to include the number of children born to HIV positive women before they become HIV positive. Thus nearly two of the three children born, on average, to HIV positive women, will be HIV negative. Now all three children born, on average, to HIV negative women, the other 67% of the population, are HIV negative. Thus one has a net growth of the population simply on grounds of numbers being born. Add to that the fact that everyone dies eventually, and that an average of 3 children are born to women between 15 and 45, and one explains the population figures themselves. Now what is happening is that the women who are HIV positive, are dying, not at fifty, sixty, seventy or eighty, but at twenty, thirty and forty. ARVs are reversing this trend to some degree in women who have access to them. But the reality is that the generation of women in their thirties and forties is significantly smaller than it would otherwise have been. It will be AIDS that has killed the majority of these women, though the realities of death in pregnancy and childbirth, car accidents, wife murders, crime, cancer, malaria and general diseases of poverty also play a role in this. > So what is it Moira: > 1) High HIV/AIDS prevalence in the population > has no impact on population growth OR It does impact on population growth, AND > 2) Africa is being depopulated by HIV/AIDS Africa is being depopulated of sexually active people between the ages of 25 and 55. You see, both premises that you have drawn are inaccurate as they stand without qualification and they cannot be used as mutually exclusive statements to use as either/or scenarios. Now what else don't you understand? -- Moira de Swardt posting from Johannesburg, South Africa Remove the dot in my address to find me at home. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bc.html The alternative view is , that as in SA the population is growing thru immigration / displacement from Zim , A fair amount of SA passport holders are actually illegally from Zim , but had to pay about R300 for a new SA ID and about R2000 for a SA passport and birth certificate > http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bc.html > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > but had to pay about R300 for a new SA ID and about R2000 for a SA > passport and birth certificate But that would show up in the population censuses, I think. And why would they only flee to South Africa, not all the other countries around South Africa. I haven't read of any massive influx of people from Zimbabwe yet. Besides, the same pattern of population growth can be seen in all Southern African countries. Alex It would not necessary show up , since they are now SA citizens. We have 2 million people from Zim in SA according to some alarmist estimates and some from other countries. In general the population in SA should be declining since the death rate is far outstripping the birth rate. Consequently the only other option for the increase in population can only be attributed to illegal immigration.( But that would be a simplistic view , I admit , but pertinent ) The same scenario would apply to Botswana , Zambia and Mozambique > It would not necessary show up , since they are now SA citizens. > We have 2 million people from Zim in SA according to some alarmist > estimates and some from other countries. > In general the population in SA should be declining since the death > rate is far outstripping the birth rate. Isn't Zimbabwe supposed to have the same level of HIV infection as South Africa, or higher? > Consequently the only other option for the increase in population can > only be attributed to illegal immigration.( But that would be a > simplistic view , I admit , but pertinent ) > The same scenario would apply to Botswana , Zambia and Mozambique So where are the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people showing up in these countries? There are supposed to be '3 million people missing from Zimbabwe' - garbage of course, like most of the reporting about Zimbabwe today Or do they just go unnoticed? But then, I don't buy most of the claims being made about Zimbabwe. The reporting is simply too politicized. So let's limit our discussion to countries that aren't being villified in the media. Alex "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > Isn't Zimbabwe supposed to have the same level of HIV infection > as South Africa, or higher? > So where are the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people showing up > in these countries? There are supposed to be '3 million people missing from > Zimbabwe' - garbage of course, like most of the reporting about Zimbabwe > today Or do they just go unnoticed? But then, I don't buy most of the claims > being made about Zimbabwe. The reporting is simply too politicized. > So let's limit our discussion to countries that aren't being villified in the media. You think? You know the situation, then? You are aware of what is going on because you maintain contact with how many people living there? You are aware of what is going on because you visit Zimbabwe how often? The reality, Alex, that you know nothing about HIV and even less about Zimbabwe. I would strongly recommend that you refrain from making ignorant comments about Zimbabwe on the soc.culture.south-africa newsgroup where many of the posters *do* know what's happening, and do believe that there are three million Zimbabweans living outside of Zimbabwe, and who do know Zimbabweans of various hues who are having an extremely tough time there at the moment. -- Moira de Swardt posting from Johannesburg, South Africa Remove the dot in my address to find me at home. > "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > > "Moira de Swardt" <moira.ds@wol.co.za> schreef in bericht [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > It does affect population growth, but not to the point at which the > population is decreasing. Ok, I have you on that one. Check out the US Census Bureau's population statistics for South Africa. From personal correspondence I know that these data are from their model which specifially takes into account a declining population because of AIDS mortality. http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum?cty=sf 2003 44,482 2004 44,448 Also notice that not only does this model show a mildly declining population, it also does not show the population growth that is clear from the population censuses. As you may know, Statistics South Africa put the mid-year 2005 population at 46.9 million. The waiting is for the next population census, but I suspect that it too will put the population of South Africa around 47 million. (The Census of 1996 was 40.6 million, and 2001 was 44.8 million.) Most institutions do believe that AIDS mortality must have an impact on population growth. I have already mentioned the World Council of Churches, Stephen Lewis (UN) and of course the US Census Bureau. > What is happening is that 25% of the > sexually active people are getting HIV. > They are also having > children. Now you can go online and check how many children the [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > dying, not at fifty, sixty, seventy or eighty, but at twenty, thirty > and forty. Their reproductive ages, which means population growth will have to be impacted. > ARVs are reversing this trend to some degree in women > who have access to them. But the reality is that the generation of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Africa is being depopulated of sexually active people between the > ages of 25 and 55. But not of the general population? You take out the sexually active segment of the population, and the first thing that will be affected is population growth. But apparently not. So who is having these 6.6 children again? > You see, both premises that you have drawn are inaccurate as they > stand without qualification and they cannot be used as mutually > exclusive statements to use as either/or scenarios. > > Now what else don't you understand? Too many things to mention, but this will do for now. :) Can't we just agree that the national HIV prevalence rate is wrong? Occam's Razor, and all that? They were wrong before, when they relied on Antenatal Clinic surveys instead of Demographic and Health Surveys. After much protest, even the UN came around to acknowledging the legitimacy of the DHS surveys. My bet is that after using proper confirmation testing in DHS surveys (Western Blot), the national prevalence numbers will go way down again. Alex It's controversy, controversy, controversy ....................... The only real way would be to go count graves and record the ages of the departed. I tend to think the HIV prevalence rate is higher than reported ( my personal opinion based on years of working in industry were up to 30% of my workforce started showing signs of aids). It must be noted it's to our governments advantage to have immigrants that can vote in elections to ensure their 2/3 majority( My little conspiracy theory ) And it's not good for investment to report that you have a aids prevalence of say 40% , just nobody would even consider to invest , except in coffin lumber. Reports recently in the M&G and news 24 or Hospitals not being abele to coupe corpses in their morgues are a bit alarming , but that could be due to government inefficiencies. It is strange that we have prevalence rates of over 40% in Lesotho and Swaziland but not in SA I just noticed something rather important . The median age of the Bot population is 19.4 years ------ 38 % of the population is younger than 14 years and 50% of the population is under 20 years of age . Effectively I would conclude that the HIV epidemic will only start in the next 10 years or so to take hold of the country . SA is not much better off with a median age of 24 , Thank you for adding your take on Alex's decades old attack on HIV and AIDS. It is nice to here from someone with first hand knowledge of the conditions in SA besides Alex. Moria has been here for years but seldom do we hear for others with first hand knowledge. Gary Stein > I just noticed something rather important . > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > SA is not much better off with a median age of 24 , "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > "Moira de Swardt" <moira.ds@wol.co.za> schreef in bericht > > "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > > > The part where the sexually reproductive getting sick and dying > > doesn't affect population growth. > > It does affect population growth, but not to the point at which the > > population is decreasing. > Ok, I have you on that one. No, you don't. > Check out the US Census Bureau's > population statistics for South Africa. From personal correspondence > I know that these data are from their model which specifially takes into > account a declining population because of AIDS mortality. See the heading. "Botswana". Don't change the countries just to suit you. > http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum?cty=sf > 2003 44,482 > 2004 44,448 > Also notice that not only does this model show a mildly > declining population, it also does not show the population > growth that is clear from the population censuses. > As you may know, Statistics South Africa put the > mid-year 2005 population at 46.9 million. The waiting > is for the next population census, but I suspect that it too > will put the population of South Africa around 47 million. > (The Census of 1996 was 40.6 million, and 2001 was > 44.8 million.) And both census figures were probably flawed for all the reasons that were discussed at the time. The next one is as about as likely to be an guestimate as the previous ones were. They're useful for planning, but not particularly accurate. > Most institutions do believe that AIDS mortality > must have an impact on population growth. > I have already mentioned the World Council > of Churches, Stephen Lewis (UN) and of course > the US Census Bureau. And it does, but in terms of at what age people are dying. > > What is happening is that 25% of the > > sexually active people are getting HIV. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > negative. Thus one has a net growth of the population simply on > > grounds of numbers being born. > > Add to that the fact that everyone dies eventually, and that an > > average of 3 children are born to women between 15 and 45, and one > > explains the population figures themselves. > > Now what is happening is that the women who are HIV positive, are > > dying, not at fifty, sixty, seventy or eighty, but at twenty, thirty > > and forty. > Their reproductive ages, which means population growth > will have to be impacted. Not necessarily to the degree at which the population growth rate becomes negative, because people may have had their children by the time they die of HIV and the birth rate is considerably higher than exactly 2. > > ARVs are reversing this trend to some degree in women > > who have access to them. But the reality is that the generation of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > and childbirth, car accidents, wife murders, crime, cancer, malaria > > and general diseases of poverty also play a role in this. > > > So what is it Moira: > > > 1) High HIV/AIDS prevalence in the population > > > has no impact on population growth OR > > It does impact on population growth, AND > > > 2) Africa is being depopulated by HIV/AIDS > > Africa is being depopulated of sexually active people between the > > ages of 25 and 55. > But not of the general population? You take out the sexually active > segment of the population, and the first thing that will be affected > is population growth. But apparently not. > So who is having these 6.6 children again? Sexually active women, some of whom are HIV positive. Remember that HIV is not a three day incubation to death scenario even without ARVs. And we're talking lower than 6.6 children in places other than Swaziland. > > You see, both premises that you have drawn are inaccurate as they > > stand without qualification and they cannot be used as mutually > > exclusive statements to use as either/or scenarios. > > Now what else don't you understand? > Too many things to mention, but this will do for now. :) > Can't we just agree that the national HIV prevalence > rate is wrong? Occam's Razor, and all that? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the UN came around to acknowledging the > legitimacy of the DHS surveys. There has been widespread concern about the rates of HIV all over. There is no general belief in the infallibility of the figures. > My bet is that after using proper confirmation > testing in DHS surveys (Western Blot), the national > prevalence numbers will go way down again. Maybe, maybe not. Factors which are more likely to influence it are higher or lower rates than extrapolated in populations which are not subject to testing, the general concept of the "window" period which was believed to be much longer than it has now been proven to be, the difficulties of getting reliable data from many sources, etc. -- Moira de Swardt posting from Johannesburg, South Africa Remove the dot in my address to find me at home. > "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > > "Moira de Swardt" <moira.ds@wol.co.za> schreef in bericht [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > See the heading. "Botswana". Don't change the countries just to > suit you. We are talking about the impact of high national HIV infection rates on population growth in principle. You are saying that it doesn't lead to a decline in population, while I have shown that at least someone believes it does. It doesn't really matter whether we're talking about Botswana, South Africa, Lesotho or Swaziland. The principle stays the same. > > http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum?cty=sf > > 2003 44,482 [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > to be an guestimate as the previous ones were. They're useful for > planning, but not particularly accurate. So how accurate are national HIV infection numbers then? They must be a lot less accurate than population censuses. > > Most institutions do believe that AIDS mortality > > must have an impact on population growth. [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > time they die of HIV and the birth rate is considerably higher than > exactly 2. See the Census Bureau's numbers for South Africa - apparently they believe that AIDS mortality does lead to a decline in population, at least for South Africa. > > > ARVs are reversing this trend to some degree in women > > > who have access to them. But the reality is that the generation [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > Maybe, maybe not. Absolutely and without a doubt. If you use only one test, you are going to get a lot more positives than if you use an independent confirmation test. > Factors which are more likely to influence it are > higher or lower rates than extrapolated in populations which are not > subject to testing, In DHS surveys, the entire population is subject to testing. The key to their accuracy is that they take a sample of about 10,000 people that is representative of the entire population. Region, gender, age, etc. > the general concept of the "window" period which > was believed to be much longer than it has now been proven to be, > the difficulties of getting reliable data from many sources, etc. So you're saying that HIV infection leads to AIDS much quicker than believed? That must mean that AIDS mortality per year must be even higher. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't add up. Alex Also, here is another institution that believes that HIV/AIDS has a big impact on population size: http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/lecture/Sub-SaharanAfrica29.gif "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > "Moira de Swardt" <moira.ds@wol.co.za> schreef in bericht > > "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > > > "Moira de Swardt" <moira.ds@wol.co.za> schreef in bericht > > > > "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > > And both census figures were probably flawed for all the reasons > > that were discussed at the time. The next one is as about as likely > > to be an guestimate as the previous ones were. They're useful for > > planning, but not particularly accurate. > So how accurate are national HIV infection numbers then? > They must be a lot less accurate than population censuses. Common cause. > > > My bet is that after using proper confirmation > > > testing in DHS surveys (Western Blot), the national > > > prevalence numbers will go way down again. > > Maybe, maybe not. > Absolutely and without a doubt. If you use only one test, > you are going to get a lot more positives than if you use > an independent confirmation test. Not a lot. A few. > > Factors which are more likely to influence it are > > higher or lower rates than extrapolated in populations which are not > > subject to testing, > In DHS surveys, the entire population is subject to testing. The > key to their accuracy is that they take a sample of about 10,000 > people that is representative of the entire population. > Region, gender, age, etc. Drivel. The entire population is not subject to testing. And many of the people who are tested are tested multiple times for one reason or another. I, for example, have about 20 HIV tests a year. I'm a platelet donor. > > the general concept of the "window" period which > > was believed to be much longer than it has now been proven to be, > > the difficulties of getting reliable data from many sources, etc. > So you're saying that HIV infection leads to AIDS much > quicker than believed? No, HIV infection leads to testing HIV positive much faster than previously thought possible. Thus positives are likely to show up much earlier than we previously believed. > That must mean that AIDS mortality per year must be even higher. Don't you *know* what a "window period" is? I thought you were trying to pass yourself off as some kind of HIV expert. > I'm sorry, but it just doesn't add up. Of course not. You don't know what you're talking about. -- Moira de Swardt posting from Johannesburg, South Africa Remove the dot in my address to find me at home. > "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > > "Moira de Swardt" <moira.ds@wol.co.za> schreef in bericht [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Drivel. The entire population is not subject to testing. You simply misunderstand. When I say the entire population is potentially subject to testing, a sample of about 10,000 people is taken from the entire population. This is why it is so much more representative than antenatal clinic surveys, which only test pregnant women, and mainly in urban areas. > And many > of the people who are tested are tested multiple times for one > reason or another. I, for example, have about 20 HIV tests a year. > I'm a platelet donor. In surveys, only a screening test is used. For 'confirmation', the same screening test is done. In the US, when a person goes for testing, they need to have two positive screening tests (ELISA) and two positive confirmation test (Western Blot). There is no excuse for not using the same rigorous standard in population surveys (at least use one Western Blot to confirm). > > > the general concept of the "window" period which > > > was believed to be much longer than it has now been proven to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Don't you *know* what a "window period" is? I thought you were > trying to pass yourself off as some kind of HIV expert. Do you know what maths is? If the time from infection to death is 10 years, then the average number of people who are going to die in a particular year (ceteris paribus, all things remaining equal), is going to be much lower than when the period is 6 years, for instance. For instance, if 50,000 people are NEWLY infected in 1996, and the time from infection to death is 10 years, you expect about 50,000 people to die in 2006. However, if the timespan is 6 years, you expect 50,000 people to die in 2002. So if the number of new infections is (for instance): 1996 50,000 1997 80,000 1998 130,000 then the effect of a 10 year span from infection to death on annual mortality would be: 2006 50,000 2007 80,000 2008 130,000 However, if the time span is 6 years, you expect the following: 2002 50,000 2003 80,000 2004 130,000 In other words, as the epidemic expanded 10 years ago and on, so you should expect AIDS mortality to rise today. If the timespan is shorter, you expect to see that reflected in the national mortality figures through higher annual mortality. Alex "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message <Drivel glanced at and snipped> People are dying of AIDS. Fortunately fewer are dying than were anticipated before the advent of ARVs and other drugs used for symptomatic treatment of opportunistic diseases. However, until every single person in the whole world is receiving the best treatment available, too many people (because even one is too many) are dying of HIV related illnesses. -- Moira de Swardt posting from Johannesburg, South Africa Remove the dot in my address to find me at home. > "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > > <Drivel glanced at and snipped> AIDS heresy arithmetic will not be tolerated. > People are dying of AIDS. Fortunately fewer are dying than were > anticipated before the advent of ARVs and other drugs used for > symptomatic treatment of opportunistic diseases. However, until > every single person in the whole world is receiving the best > treatment available, Yes, "every single person in the world" should be given AIDS treatment. If we divert all the health resources and save one single HIV+ possible, it will be worth it. > too many people (because even one is too many) are dying of HIV > related illnesses. Yes! They should be dying from poverty, malnutrition, malaria, TB, unclean drinking water, lack of sanitation, dysentery, cholera . . . . . . . Oh, I forgot; in your country, they are. http://tinyurl.com/rhq8g Best Regards, Sean McHugh  SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com "Sean McHugh" <smchugh@shoal.net.au> wrote in message > > People are dying of AIDS. Fortunately fewer are dying than were > > anticipated before the advent of ARVs and other drugs used for > > symptomatic treatment of opportunistic diseases. However, until > > every single person in the whole world is receiving the best > > treatment available, > Yes, "every single person in the world" should be given AIDS > treatment. If we divert all the health resources and save one > single HIV+ possible, it will be worth it. It won't take *all the health resources*. > > too many people (because even one is too many) are dying of HIV > > related illnesses. > Yes! They should be dying from poverty, malnutrition, malaria, TB, > unclean drinking water, lack of sanitation, dysentery, cholera . . > . . . . . Oh, I forgot; in your country, they are. We don't have, fortunately, a high rate of deaths due to malaria as most of South Africa does not fall within the malaria belt. We, sadly, do have a lot of people dying from malnutrition (the main disease of poverty), TB (the main disease associated with HIV), and diseases caused by unclean drinking water. The latter has improved quite dramatically since 1994. -- Moira de Swardt posting from Johannesburg, South Africa Remove the dot in my address to find me at home. > "Sean McHugh" <smchugh@shoal.net.au> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > It won't take *all the health resources*. Just most? Alex "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > "Moira de Swardt" <moira.ds@wol.co.za> schreef in bericht > > "Sean McHugh" <smchugh@shoal.net.au> wrote in message > > > > People are dying of AIDS. Fortunately fewer are dying than were > > > > anticipated before the advent of ARVs and other drugs used for > > > > symptomatic treatment of opportunistic diseases. However, until > > > > every single person in the whole world is receiving the best > > > > treatment available, > > > Yes, "every single person in the world" should be given AIDS > > > treatment. If we divert all the health resources and save one > > > single HIV+ possible, it will be worth it. > > It won't take *all the health resources*. > Just most? The premise was rubbish. No-one has come up with a plan to divert all health resources into HIV and AIDS awareness, prevention and treatment. Besides which, as health facilities are improved they address all, or most health issues, one of which is HIV and AIDS. -- Moira de Swardt posting from Johannesburg, South Africa Remove the dot in my address to find me at home. > "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > > <Drivel glanced at and snipped> Glanced at, but not understood, or assimilated and THEN rejected. So mathematics is not your strong point. :) Too bad you can't just admit that, isn't it? Alex "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > "Moira de Swardt" <moira.ds@wol.co.za> schreef in bericht > > <Drivel glanced at and snipped> > Glanced at, but not understood, or assimilated and THEN rejected. > So mathematics is not your strong point. :) > Too bad you can't just admit that, isn't it? What *is* my strong point is a fair, accurate and reasonably up to date, knowledge of what is actually happening in the field of HIV and AIDS in Africa. Now what's your strong point? -- Moira de Swardt posting from Johannesburg, South Africa Remove the dot in my address to find me at home. <snipped> As mad as a hatter > <snipped> > > As mad as a hatter As daft as bicycles > > <snipped> > > > > As mad as a hatter > > As daft as bicycles As thick as two short planks - oh boy! Here we go again. >I still haven't heard anyone explain to me how a country > with 25% HIV infection, can also have a population growth [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Alex > ----- Alex it has been common knowledge that the population growth rates of the European nations, the US and Japan have been declining for decades. With some European nations at or near negative growth rates i.e. declining populations. The various explanations as to why the above is occurring is that as education and income increases in a society birth rates go down and life spans go up. There are also some biological theriorists who have some ideas as to the causes of this but I won't go into them in that there does not seem to be much consensus yet as to those ideas. Russia is a special case but it to is experiencing a negative growth rate since the fall of the USSR. Now as to you question about Botswana, do you know what the growth rate was prior to 1980 for the country I am willing to guess that it was higher then the current rate of 2.6% which would be entirely consistent with the existence of HIV. Gary Stein > I still haven't heard anyone explain to me how a country > with 25% HIV infection, can also have a population growth > of 2.6%. That's because you have never been with a woman.
|
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.