🚀 go-pugleaf

LeRoy Blue <leroyblue@billon.net> writes:

> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:58:58 -0800, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill
> Z.) wrote:
>
>>kujebak <kujebak@eudoramail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Who cares about HIV incidence among IV drug users, or different
>>> racial groups? Is there anywhere in this report a mention of the
>>> probability of HIV transmission from an HIV positive male to another
>>> man through unprotected homosex?
>>
>>You might look at 
>><http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/epiu-aepi/epi_update_may_04/13-eng.php>
>>which claims:
>>
>>      One study calculated the per-sex-act probability of HIV
>>      transmission in a cohort of men who have sex with men (MSM) and
>>      determined that for unprotected receptive anal intercourse, the
>>      probability was 0.82% per act, for unprotected insertive anal
>>      intercourse 0.06%, and for unprotected receptive oral
>>      intercourse with ejaculation 0.04%. This remains the only study
>>      available that provides a probability for oral transmission, and
>>      further study is required to corroborate these estimates.
>>
>>Also:
>>
>>      Analyses of data from North American and European studies of
>>      long-term heterosexual couples estimate the per-sex-act
>>      probability of HIV transmission through penile-vaginal
>>      intercourse to be approximately 0.001.
>>
>>Note that 0.001 is equivalent to 0.1%.  So, the risk depends less on
>>whether you are gay or straight than on what sort of sex acts you do
>>and what sort of protection you use.
>
> Explain, then, why in the United States 300,000 to 400.000 homosexuals
> males (MSM) died of AIDS in the first 15 years of he epidemic. AIDS is
> a GAY disease.

Before answering that, I should mention that you obviously are not
able to understand what is being discussed as it was the risk per sex
act with an infected individual that was the topic under dicussion,
and that has nothing to do with your question.

To answer your off-topic question, the reason is because at the start
of the epidemic (a) a lot of people were infected before anyone even
knew the disease existed due to the time lag between infection and
showing symptoms, (b) nobody knew that unprotected receptive anal sex
was particularly risky compared to other sexual practices (it took a
while before the rates could be measured), (c) the currrent anti-viral
drugs had yet to be developed, and (d) it took a while before the
virus was identified and a test for it could be developed.

Also, if you construct a graph whose nodes are individuals and whose
edges represent sexual contact, for a purely straight group, the graph
is a bipartite graph, whereas it isn't for a gay group.  Given that
the infection rates are asymmetric regarding receptive versus
penetrative contact, the bipartite graph explains how straights get an
additional level of protection against spreading the infection.  If
terms like bipartite graph go over your head, I suggest you find
someone who is willing to dump the discussion down to your level.

If you want to talk about "morality" or whatever sexual hangups or
prejudices you have, try someone who doesn't think of what is going on
as a physical process.