 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / August 2006South African Population: 47.4 Million (Mid-year 2006 Estimate)
Up from 46.9 million in mid-year 2005. Anyone still wants to argue the country with 'the most hiv positive people IN THE WORLD', has a shrinking population because of AIDS? Alex From the Statistics South Africa newsletter (and also here http://www.statssa.gov.za/keyindicators/mye.asp ): P0302 - Mid-year population estimates 2006 The mid-2006 population is estimated at approximately 47,4 million. (The census figure for October 2001 was 44,8 million.) Africans are in the majority (nearly 37,7 million) and constitute 80 percent of the total South African population. Fifty-one per cent (approximately 24 million) of the population is female. The provincial estimates show that KwaZulu-Natal has the largest share of the population (approximately 21%), followed by Gauteng (20%). >Up from 46.9 million in mid-year 2005. Anyone still wants to argue >the country with 'the most hiv positive people IN THE WORLD', >has a shrinking population because of AIDS? First, I don't trust you or the statistics you post. Presuming though that they are accurate for the sake of argument, who said that South Africa has a shrinking population because of AIDS? And to the extent that may be anticipated, when would it begin to shrink? Anyway, it's a really lame attempt to claim HIV doesn't cause AIDS, Alex. George M. Carter > Up from 46.9 million in mid-year 2005. Anyone still wants to argue > the country with 'the most hiv positive people IN THE WORLD', > has a shrinking population because of AIDS? > Alex Firstly, no-one has argued that countries most afflicted with HIV have "shrinking" populations. As has been explained to you countless of times, a country which has a birth rate in excess of its death rate will have positive population growth. Secondly, I think you will find that India has the most HIV cases, not SA. DavidT a écrit : > Firstly, no-one has argued that countries most afflicted with HIV have > "shrinking" populations. Wow, David ! Do you not know the US Census Bureau ? http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum.pl?cty=SF These high graduate people had really estimated that the SA population should have a shrinking population because of AIDS, from 44,482 (the highest) in 2003 to 44,188 in 2006 > DavidT a écrit : > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > SA population should have a shrinking population because > of AIDS, from 44,482 (the highest) in 2003 to 44,188 in 2006 From personal communication, I know that the US Census Bureau has TWO models, one that takes into account AIDS mortality, and one that doesn't. The 44 million is from the model that takes into account AIDS mortality. Obviously, Statistics South Africa and the WHO believe the population of South Africa is now well over 47 million. Alex Alex a écrit : > > DavidT a écrit : > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Alex You are right, Alex! look at : http://www.census.gov/ipc/hiv/safrica.pdf predicted growth rate without aids in 2000 : 1,2%, fare below the reality predicted growth rate with aids in 2000 : 0,5%, more fare below the reality but all other datas are estimate : for instance, life expectancy. I accept that the US census bureau estimates indicate there will be a net negative population growth (-0.2% form 2000-2010), so I also accept your OP statement that experts have predicted "shrinkage", and I see that Statistics South Africa do not corroborate these population estimates. There are clearly differences in population stats dependent on where one looks - this is not a good thing, obviously, since it engenders uncertainty and also enables detractors or supporters of any persuasion to cherry-pick the data that reaffirms their preconceptions (You wouldn't dream of doing that now, would you Alex.....?). One glaring reason for the disparity lies in what are given as the fertility rates (which have little to do with HIV). US census bureau says these are 2.2% in 2005, Stats SA say it is 2.8%. Who is correct? US census bureau says the SA population in 2005 is 43.3 million, Stats SA say it is 46.9 million in 2005. Can I ask you which one you believe? Obviously someone is wrong, and I would question the figures on which the US bureau is basing its estimates for future population "shrinkage". DavidT a écrit : > I accept that the US census bureau estimates indicate there will be a > net negative population growth (-0.2% form 2000-2010), so I also accept [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > the US bureau is basing its estimates for future population > "shrinkage". >From Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Africa they note : Estimates for this country explicitly take into account the effects of excess mortality due to AIDS; this can result in lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality and death rates, lower population and growth rates, and changes in the distribution of population by age and sex than would otherwise be expected (July 2005 est.) The figures on which the US bureau is basing its estimates is the same on which tha WHO is basing its estimates for the mortality of AIDS : the HIV prevalence, which should provoke these results. But the results of the census in SA, in Botswana, in Uganda..., show that these figures are flawed. DavidT a écrit : > I accept that the US census bureau estimates indicate there will be a > net negative population growth (-0.2% form 2000-2010), so I also accept [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > the US bureau is basing its estimates for future population > "shrinkage". >From Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Africa > they note : Estimates for this country explicitly take into account the > effects of excess mortality due to AIDS; this can result in lower life [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > on which tha WHO is basing its estimates for the mortality of AIDS : > the HIV prevalence, which should provoke these results. Instead, they should base them on actual counts, like the Population Censuses that the South African government does of it's own population (so far, once every 5 years, so I'm waiting for any news from this year's Census). Also, no one in the media properly reported the South African 'causes of death' reports, which routinly put deaths from HIV/AIDS in South Africa between 10,000 and 15,000 per year. As opposed to UNAIDS estimate of 320,000 or more. (I remember it was 370,000, and later on 450,000, but they changed the number to 320,000 without any explanation.) Actually, it was pretty disgraceful. All the so-called media outlets added all kinds of other causes of death to the reported deaths from HIV/AIDS, and reported that as what the report said. From the BBC: "the main causes of death were avoidable effects of poverty: HIV/Aids, tuberculosis (39%) and physical assault (29%)." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3024021.stm But HIV/AIDS was never reported as a 'major cause of death' at all. Nor is proven to be 'linked to poverty'. > But the results of the census in SA, in Botswana, in Uganda..., > show that these figures are flawed. And they do so over and over. High population growth, and no discernable effect from a massive number of deaths from HIV/AIDS. From AVERT.ORG. This is how they spin it. HIV/AIDS deaths are supposed to be 'misclassified'. But *only 4.2%* was correctly classified as a death from HIV/AIDS?? They don't explain that. (13,590 to 320,000 death estimated by UNAIDS for 2003). http://www.hivinsite.com/global?page=cr09-sf-00 Also, they conveniently 'forget' that misreporting a cause of death in South Africa is an offense, and 'to spare the family', the doctor in question would be putting his job and career at risk. They (the MRC) of course also blame the ANC for some reason or another. They should be blaming themselves for such sloppy non-reporting of the facts. ____________________________________________________ http://avert.org.uk/safricastats.htm Misclassification In 2004, HIV was recorded as a cause of death in only 13,590 cases. However, according to the Medical Research Council of South Africa (MRC), this figure is a massive underestimate, because the majority of deaths due to HIV are misclassified. 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 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."3 ____________________________________________________ Basically, they (Avert.org, the MRC, The Lancet) are skirting around the facts. The fact is that in 2003, only 13,590 of all reported deaths were credited to HIV/AIDS. Alex Alex a écrit : > DavidT a écrit : > [quoted text clipped - 109 lines] > > Alex You see, Alex, our orthodoxy guys stay dumb. They have nothing to answer. Alex a écrit : > "John_fr" <j.umber@ac-nancy-metz.fr> schreef in bericht > news:1155044640.142742.190350@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Alex > You are right, Alex! > look at : > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > but all other datas are estimate : > for instance, life expectancy. John, thanks. I hadn't found that file yet. My opinion was based on personal correspondence. I would of course always want to learn more about specifics of the model used. More interesting stuff from this file: " In 1999, 22 percent of pregnant women tested HIV positive. " So what happened to such a massive impact on population growth as over 1/5 *pregnant* women testing positive for HIV? As most women aren't pregnant, these women's status would have an even bigger impact on population growth. Or decline, according to the US Census Bureau AIDS including model. According to Moira, there would be no decline in population. The irony is that these numbers are so high, because they reflect bad survey types, and BAD TESTS. ELISA in Africa is COMPLETELY UNRELIABLE. This has not been clearer to me, than when looking at and thinking about this file. No one in the USA is allowed to be diagnosed on the basis of one or even two ELISA tests. And yet Western Blot is never used as a confirmation test during these surveys. It is more than time, that Western Blot is used to confirm positive ELISA screening tests in surveys. It is more expensive, but not as expensive as making policy based on BAD DATA. The following two articles show the effect of moving from an ANC based survey type, to the DHS survey type, which is statistically representative when it comes to estimating national prevalence rates. Think of how much farther downward the national prevalence rate has to be adjusted, when these surveys start using proper confirmation tests, like Western Blot. Anso Thom's article on the HSRC findings in The Independent (South Africa) http://www.independent.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20021206063 345189C308684 BOSTON GLOBE: Estimates on HIV called too high New data cut rates for many nations By John Donnelly, Globe Staff | June 20, 2004 http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/06/20/estimates_on_hiv_called_too _high/ > Up from 46.9 million in mid-year 2005. Anyone still wants to argue > the country with 'the most hiv positive people IN THE WORLD', [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > P0302 - Mid-year population estimates 2006 If Alex is interested in Statistics South Africa publications then he should read P0309.3 - Mortality and causes of death in South Africa: Findings from death notification, 2003,2004 (Embargoed until: 31 May 2006 11:30) http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P03093/P030932003,2004.pdf In particular look at Figure 3.4 and the huge rise in deaths of people aged 20-50 between 1997 and 2002. Tell me that there is no problem. What is causing this dramatic shift in demographics? Chris Noble > > Up from 46.9 million in mid-year 2005. Anyone still wants to argue > > the country with 'the most hiv positive people IN THE WORLD', [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > What is causing this dramatic shift in demographics? Who says this is a shift in demographics? First of all, you can see that through all the years measured, - there is an increase in mortality from ages 15-19 and onwards for all years - deaths in the 10-14 range are the same in all years (exempt from AIDS perhaps?) - there is a higher number of deaths every year in even in the 0-4 range It is very easy for people with little knowledge of sociology or statistics to look at a statistic and presume there must be one cause. For instance, years ago I e-mailed an individual who believed that the typical pyramid shaped population chart that one can see for every third world country (including Iran) was proof positive that South Africa was being decimated by AIDS. There were a lot of things going on in South Africa, not in the least a rationalization of the death notification data. Keep in mind that upto 1 year before 1997, statitical data for the 'independent homelands' was still collected separately, if at all. Also, consider this: " 3.3 Age and sex differentials Table 3.4 shows the age distribution of deaths for males and females from 1997 to 2004. The overall number of deaths indicates that for all years, there were more male deaths than female deaths. For both males and females, there was an increase in the number of deaths, although the percentage increase in the number of deaths from year to year was consistently higher for females than for males. For example, between 2003 and 2004, male deaths increased by 1,8% while female deaths increased by 3,7%. " Now, how can an increase of male deaths, and a decrease in female deaths, be attributed to AIDS? In a so-called generalized heterosexual epidemic, women are far more likely than men to be infected. Therefore, there should be far more female than male death from AIDS. On the other hand, if there is an increase in poverty; if there is an end to pass laws and people can settle where they want; if there is in fact a well documented movement from the countryside to the cities (urbanisation), then you could an increase or transplantation of poverty to the cities, and an increase in deaths by violence. Therefore, an increase in male deaths, and a decrease in female deaths is not consistent with an increase of deaths from AIDS. However, and this is important, if all these people were dying because of AIDS, who is generating the massive population growth that is witnessed by population censuses? And then of course, you get to the REAL reported causes of death. Notice that HIV/AIDS is only attributed to 11,926 cases in 2003 and 13,590 cases in 2004. Table 4.2: Distribution of reported causes of death: 2003 and 2004 In fact, HIV/AIDS as a reported cause of death (#21) is well behind deaths from diabetes (#13). Of course we all know what the press spin was at the time - they simply added all the deaths from tuberculosis, influence & pneumonia (which decreased from 2003 to 2004) and more to arrive at a more 'acceptable' level. But there it is. In only 13,590 instances in the year 2004, was HIV/AIDS listed as the cause of death. Even though UNAIDS insists deaths from AIDS are 370,000 per year or more. Alex By the way, 1997 to 2002 is a long time. The timeline for data from South Africa works like this. 1989 The Berlin Wall falls and the internal justification for Apartheid (fighting communism) disappears 1992 Talks between the ANC and the NP 1994 The ANC comes to power 1996 The ANC gvt starts to integrate data collection from the Republic of South Africa and the 'independent homelands' (note that this year is also the 'beginning of the AIDS epidemic in South Africa - coincidence? I think not - this has been a statistical game all along.) 1998 data collection becomes more standardized Meanwhile, the population of South Africa grows around 1.98% per year, which how it went from 40.6 million in 1996, to 44.8 million in 2001, to an estimated 47.4 million in 2006. (Notice I rely on population censuses, which I think are more accurate, from an earlier date onwards.) > > > Up from 46.9 million in mid-year 2005. Anyone still wants to argue > > > the country with 'the most hiv positive people IN THE WORLD', [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Who says this is a shift in demographics? Duhh! Stats SA > First of all, you can see that through all the years measured, > - there is an increase in mortality from ages 15-19 and onwards for all years [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It is very easy for people with little knowledge of sociology or statistics > to look at a statistic and presume there must be one cause. I never stated that there must be one cause. My first point was to see whether you would admit that there is a problem in South Africa that is dramatically effecting the demographics. Chris Noble > > > > Up from 46.9 million in mid-year 2005. Anyone still wants to argue > > > > the country with 'the most hiv positive people IN THE WORLD', [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > problem in South Africa that is dramatically effecting the > demographics. It is called poverty. It was mandated by the state until 12 years ago, and the effects of disenfranchisement in South Africa of the Black and also Coloured and Asian populations are something that will take a massive financial and political effort to turn back. Did you know that in the 19th century, there were more African mining claim holders than Europeans? Without Apartheid, they would have been mine owners and there would be no poverty in South Africa today. However, the end of artificially keeping people in the countryside, the end of 'citizenship' of 'independent homelands', and continued massive White land ownership will all add to urbanisation in the short term. There are a lot of very impoverished people arriving from the countryside and ending up in slums. I will bet that they too will be more easily monitored in the cities and become included in surveys. Alex
|
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.