How AIDS in Africa was overstated

[manu1959]

3% infection rate not 30%

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12175521/

AIDS deaths on the predicted scale never arrived here, government health officials say. A new national study illustrates why: The rate of HIV infection among Rwandans ages 15 to 49 is 3 percent, according to the study, enough to qualify as a major health problem but not nearly the national catastrophe once predicted.

The new data suggest the rate never reached the 30 percent estimated by some early researchers, nor the nearly 13 percent given by the United Nations in 1998.

 

[Avatar4321]

In the West African country of Ghana, for example, the overall infection rate for people ages 15 to 49 is 2.2 percent. But in Botswana, the national infection rate among the same age group is 34.9 percent. And in the city of Francistown, 45 percent of men and 69 percent of women ages 30 to 34 are infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

69%?!!?!?!

that's insane. there is going to be no one in that country in a few years at that rate.

On another note, are they going to return all the money we gave them to fight the disease since its apparently not as bad?

 

[Hobbit]

69%?!!?!?!

that's insane. there is going to be no one in that country in a few years at that rate.

On another note, are they going to return all the money we gave them to fight the disease since its apparently not as bad?

Of course not. The whole reason for the distortion in the first place was to...get money.

 

[Nuc]

Hobbit, I don't think you've been to Africa. I have and you can see many people walking around on the street with full blown AIDS. Multiply that by the number of people who don't have obvious symptoms and you are still talking about an epidemic, regardless of the percentage you want to put on it.

 

[theHawk]

Either way, there is no reason at all for our government to be giving one penny to countries to "fight AIDS". If you want to those countries to get money then open up your checkbook and donate to a charity. Forcing all of us to give to these types of 'charities' via taxes is immoral.

 

[Nuc]

Either way, there is no reason at all for our government to be giving one penny to countries to "fight AIDS". If you want to those countries to get money then open up your checkbook and donate to a charity. Forcing all of us to give to these types of 'charities' via taxes is immoral.

Then we shouldn't be paying astronomical taxes for anything else either. That way we might have money left for charity or religion or whatever we want to spend it on.

News today is Bush wants approval to build 125 nuclear (or nucular as he says) bombs. Face it, after the first 3 or 4 are detonated we won't need the rest. Armageddon will have been unleashed. It's a waste of money. Taxes and spending should be cut for everything.

 

[deaddude]

Dont we have enough Nuclear bombs to kill everyliving thing on earth (except perhaps a few cockroaches) 5 times? Seems kind of pointless to make more.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Dont we have enough Nuclear bombs to kill everyliving thing on earth (except perhaps a few cockroaches) 5 times? Seems kind of pointless to make more.

Consider it penis enlargement.

 

[Mr. P]

Dont we have enough Nuclear bombs to kill everyliving thing on earth (except perhaps a few cockroaches) 5 times? Seems kind of pointless to make more.

Producing new Nucs seems to be a reasonably move to me. Ever shot old ammunition and have multiple misfires?

I’m sure the intricate electronics in a Nuc are subject to deterioration over a period of years. When we need one, should we just hope it works?


MissileMan could tell us for sure. However, it seems like a no brainer to me.

 

[Nuc]

Producing new Nucs seems to be a reasonably move to me. Ever shot old ammunition and have multiple misfires?

I’m sure the intricate electronics in a Nuc are subject to deterioration over a period of years. When we need one, should we just hope it works?


MissileMan could tell us for sure. However, it seems like a no brainer to me.

Why would we "need" 125? If they go stale wouldn't it be smarter to build a few at a time. I for one don't think the world can withstand the detonation of 125 nukes.

 

[Mr. P]

Why would we "need" 125? If they go stale wouldn't it be smarter to build a few at a time. I for one don't think the world can withstand the detonation of 125 nukes.

Perhaps the request is for 125, hoping to get 50. Just a thought.

As far as building a few at a time...makes sense to me, I don't know why they don't do it that way. Maybe the inventory is expirering at the same time..I dunno.

As far as the world withstanding 125 nukes, I agree. But, remember all are not targeted in the same place. Which means all will not be used. Then there is the size issue, how big are these 125, small, medium, large or a combination? Where are the based, silos, ships/subs, artilary? Lots of variables.

 

[deaddude]

Producing new Nucs seems to be a reasonably move to me. Ever shot old ammunition and have multiple misfires?

I’m sure the intricate electronics in a Nuc are subject to deterioration over a period of years. When we need one, should we just hope it works?


MissileMan could tell us for sure. However, it seems like a no brainer to me.

Why shouldn't we just inspect and repair what we have

 

[theHawk]

I love all these assumptions. Like the assumption that we'd have all 125 nukes available and ready to use in the event of a war. Like Gene Hackman said in Crimson Tide, you don't just fight wars when everything is 'hunky dory'. If another country strikes us first then we'll only be able to fight back with whats left. So the more you have spread out the better. If that type of event ever happened and people like you feel that its 'armageddon' and the world is over anyway, then you can go ahead and kill yourself -- the rest of us would like to fight back with something.

 

[Mr. P]

Why shouldn't we just inspect and repair what we have

Dunno. Who makes the parts? Can ya get em?

I'm sure this is much more complex than it might appear.

 

[Hobbit]

Hobbit, I don't think you've been to Africa. I have and you can see many people walking around on the street with full blown AIDS. Multiply that by the number of people who don't have obvious symptoms and you are still talking about an epidemic, regardless of the percentage you want to put on it.

Yeah, I know that, but these countries have "Weasel money from the U.S." committees, rather than "Let's try to stem the tide of the most preventable frickin' plague in history" committees.

 

[deaddude]

Dunno. Who makes the parts? Can ya get em?

I'm sure this is much more complex than it might appear.

If you can get them to build new ones you can surely get them to fix the old ones

 

[Mr. P]

If you can get them to build new ones you can surely get them to fix the old ones

But you're making an assumtion that technology hasn't changed, which of course it has. That alone brings up the compatability question.

Are the old parts still out there? I doubt there was ever a surplus supply, think about it. If they are out there they have also seen their usefull life expire.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

But you're making an assumtion that technology hasn't changed, which of course it has. That alone brings up the compatability question.

Are the old parts still out there? I doubt there was ever a surplus supply, think about it. If they are out there they have also seen their usefull life expire.

Often it becomes impossible/more expensive to retrofit old weaponry into technologically-current versions. It's not as simple as taking the old timer out and putting a new one in. Plus, with something as delicate as a nuke, it's better to have a complete design than trying to piggyback multiple iterations off something that was never intended to have the technology that's available today.

 

[Mr. P]

Often it becomes impossible/more expensive to retrofit old weaponry into technologically-current versions. It's not as simple as taking the old timer out and putting a new one in. Plus, with something as delicate as a nuke, it's better to have a complete design than trying to piggyback multiple iterations off something that was never intended to have the technology that's available today.

I agree.