Advertisement
The Body: The Complete HIV/AIDS Resource
Follow Us Follow Us on Facebook Follow Us on Twitter Download Our App
Professionals >> Visit The Body PROThe Body en Espanol
Read Now: Expert Opinions on HIV Cure Research

HIV Transmission and Education >> Am I Infected?

Pages: 1
Anonymous
Unregistered

A problem with the stats...
      #101420 - 07/13/04 11:42 PM

If the riskiest of risky behaviors only carries a 3% (upper limit) risk, how is it that so many people seem to have this disease? I mean, is it mainly people that sleep with a pos person repeatedly that causes them to contract the virus? I believe the stats as they have been tested, I just don't understand I guess.

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: A problem with the stats... new
      #101421 - 07/13/04 11:43 PM

Oh yeah, not to mention that I'm quite happy that those are the stats.

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: A problem with the stats... new
      #101434 - 07/14/04 12:43 AM

Where are you getting your stats from? I am not fully understanding what your question is. There are numerous people in the world that are walking around with HIV and don't know they have it. Or they do know they have it and just don't care or just don't want to face it. The key is to have protected sexual experiences if you are active, education, or just none at all until you are married.

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: A problem with the stats... new
      #101450 - 07/14/04 12:56 PM

I'm getting these stats from studies done by various sources, and these are the values accepted by the CDC. Receptive anal with a known hiv+ male with ejaculation is .1-3% (huge range I know) and receptive vaginal w/ male w/ hiv w/ ejaculation is .1-.3%, deep open wound with large amounts of high virus load blood going into it is .3%, other body fluid than blood in large bleeding open wound is .1%.

These are the CDC stats that I'm referring to.

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
doodlebug
Newbie

Reged: 07/03/04
Posts: 7
Loc: USA
Re: A problem with the stats... new
      #101479 - 07/14/04 10:57 PM

Not saying I have a problem with the stats. But this is just food for thought....as I stated before... with people out in this world that do not know they have been infected...would you not think the stats. are off. Or it might be just stats. on persons who have tested positive. It is my belief that the stats are based on just the persons who are positive. Everybody knows that when you go to be tested they ask you questions on your sexual preferences, etc.. And with that comes the stats. that they currently have.

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: A problem with the stats... new
      #101502 - 07/15/04 11:32 AM

There have been actual studies done...scientific ones, not just random guesses, I seriously doubt the CDC would just take a random guess and publish it, don't you? As for the occupational exposure, I'm pretty sure that those are quite well documented as they mainly occur in hospitals where the status of the patient is known, and the status of the worker can be documented over time.

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
doodlebug
Newbie

Reged: 07/03/04
Posts: 7
Loc: USA
Re: A problem with the stats... new
      #101551 - 07/15/04 11:18 PM

Look I am not saying the stats. are not right. They are right and factual based on the people that are known to be HIV positive. You can not put a stat on what is not known. What about the people who are out in the world who have HIV and do not know. The CDC is pulling their information from the people that they do know who have it. And the answers that you give about sexual preferences. I spoke to my own doctor who works for the heath dept..

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
doodlebug
Newbie

Reged: 07/03/04
Posts: 7
Loc: USA
Re: A problem with the stats... new
      #101552 - 07/15/04 11:53 PM

You know we might be saying the same thing but two different ways. The stats. are only as acurate as the persons involved. In another words if they are getting their results only from people who participated in a study and this doen't allow for people who haven't told anyone, don't know the have HIV etc... So of course the results would be low. And if the highest contact results are from the risky end, would only matter if there where more people from the risky end where participating in the study.

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: A problem with the stats... new
      #101553 - 07/15/04 11:59 PM

But... there are controlled studies done using serodiscordant couples and the findings from that are what they publish. They don't call up people and do a random phone survey, and having a doctor that works at the health department is hardly something to brag about. The CDC won't publish nonsensical data. As for occupational exposures, sex has NOTHING to do with it (unless I suppose you've been hookin for a living or are a pornstar.) It has to do with needle sticks, glass slicing your flesh open and exposing you to highly infectous semen or other fluids kept in lab conditions to keep the virus viable. I think even you can agree that this is easy to quantitate, unless you're a complete moron. And wouldn't it make sense that injecting yourself with blood that is known to be highly infectous--meaning you get someone with HIV's blood in your bloodstream--would carry a similar if not greater (ironically it's not) risk than having sex where there isn't a guarantee that you'll even get the virus in your body? Just curious to your thoughts.

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: A problem with the stats... new
      #101588 - 07/16/04 03:34 PM

you make no sense. These studies were done using controlled methods and were peer reviewed. I doubt the CDC would publish junk science... a percentage is a percentage whether it is 3% of 1,000,000 or 3% of 1000... it doesn't matter! If these people that are sleeping with known HIV+ people unprotected they are at the same risk as sleeping with someone that isn't known...it doesn't matter if you know you're positive or not, you're still positive. You're claiming that these would be low because there are so many people out there with the virus that don't know it, but why would that matter? You need to take a class on research methods and a stats class.

What about exposure to infected blood though open wounds in a laboratory/medical setting. Surely you can't argue that these stats are low because of so many people out in the world have HIV and don't know it. These are quite possibly the most controlled/controllable studies able to be performed. You KNOW you were exposed to infected blood/semen/CSF/whatever, so they would watch to see if you seroconvert. Turns out the chances of this are 1 in 300 for blood, and 1 in 1000 for other fluids. Tell me how this could be low doodlebug!?!

I think you fail to realize how studies are done. You get a representative sample of a population (the people that participated in the study) and use that as a model with a specific certainty (based on sample size) and compare that to a control. This is how all scientific testing is done, a model is based on the set, and using various stats methods a confidence is established. It's simple when you actually think about it, we had to do stuff like this in 7th grade, I don't see how it can be that difficult to grasp.

Let's consider drug testing:

When a company is ready to run human trials on a new drug they get a sample population of people to take the drug or a placebo (aka a 'sugar pill'.) then to establish if it is effective they see what happens when people take it...if it's a good drug the people that take it get better while the control (sugar pill group) doesn't. What you're saying is that the study would be off because it may only work for the people participating in it and not for the population as a whole, which is completely foolish. I would suggest you run a google search on home statistic experiments and sampling and try doing one, hopefully you'll see how it works.

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
doodlebug
Newbie

Reged: 07/03/04
Posts: 7
Loc: USA
Re: A problem with the stats... new
      #101605 - 07/16/04 06:22 PM

First off it is easy anonymous and have strong opinions. You say that 3% of a million is the same as 3% of a thousand that it doesn't matter. Which the only truth is that 3% is 3%. If you have 3% of a population it is different between a small population and a large population, have you ever heard of percapita? If you are playing a lottery and you have a 3% chance of winning...do not think your chances would be better if there was only 100 tickets sold or a thousand. There is a difference between percentages and averages. So how can 3% of a study constitute and accurate figure for the whole when the 3% is only based on available information for that study? You say a person sleeping with someone who is known to have HIV is at the same risk as someone sleeping with someone who doesn't . If someone doesn't know they have it, they don't know and neither do you. So how could this be figured into a percentage if you don't know. What increases the chances of someone contacting HIV? Lifestyle choices, hazardous working conditions, etc... The chances of contacting HIV through blood and wounds from what you say...would be the same for someone who has no contact with body fluids in their job as compared to doctors,nurses, lab techs..which is ridiculous. A person who doesn't drive a car doesn't have the same chance of having a car accident as people who drive. Would you agree with this? If you do not sleep with people who are at a high risk, don't you think this would lower the chances of contacting HIV? Barring their occupations. You have to understand how a study is done and where and how the info is obtained, and if it is accurate,and be able to separate fact from fiction,studies are not always accurate thats why there is a margine of error,and if someones wants to make a point in thier favor, a study or statistic can reflect and lead you to their opinion. Like politics,everyone has a study to help there side. You say the studies where done in a controlled way, what kind of control? And do they know if the info obtained was accurate? Did somebody give you the details on how the control was done? Or where you there to witness how it was conducted? So that you know for a fact all precautions where taken and all information was proven 100% accurate and honest? People do lie,if you say on a form that you are not heterosexual, how do they know if you are or not? As to the drug testing part of you reply. What if the drug works on women and not men? What if age has a factor, and race or nationality,if everyone in these catagories are not equal in representaion then the figures will be off. I don't think the information that CDC puts out is junk. But these should be used as guidelines and not as absolute. You must know how the study was done,who did the study,why it was done, what information was used in the study, how it was obtained, the difference between fact and opinion and combine it all and make up your own mind to is validity and practical application. I know alot of people read something and then in thier mind it becomes fact ,without ever checking it out for themselves to see it it is accurate,but solely relying on the material that they read,or gotten second hand. Example an ulcer was treated trough out time with milk, operations ,medicines bland foods etc.info was pasted down for generation on what to do ,doctors all thought they knew what to do,now we know that it is caused by a bacteria and that it can be treated with strong antibiotics ,and that milk is the worst thing to take as it produces more acid. Thank god someone didn't believe in everything that they read, that they where taught and what was published and what was handed down to them, and went out on there own and questioned if this info was accurate, and was open minded enough to look in a new direction. Do you know the differance between a fact and a theory?

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: A problem with the stats... new
      #101607 - 07/16/04 07:20 PM

I can't argue with you... I think you're quite possibly the most ignorant person alive. Take a simple 8th grade science class and learn about studies.

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: A problem with the stats... new
      #101609 - 07/16/04 08:13 PM

Feeling is mutual. One day you'll pull your head out the sand.

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: A problem with the stats... new
      #101613 - 07/16/04 10:35 PM

Yup, maybe that will be the day after you get an education.

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1


What's New at TheBody.com

Additional Information
1 registered and 2 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  TheBody, bogart, crabman, riverprincess 

Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is enabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Thread views: 2884

 
Jump to

Contact Us | Privacy Statement The Body

*
UBB.threads™ 6.2.3