Topic: South African HIV prevalence rises on soaring new infections (Read 3674 times)
HIV-1(O) and some other subtypes are undetectable using these tests... But HIV-1(O) hosts share is less than 0.01% of total infected population at the moment.
Well maybe this logic had place in 80s. I hope it won't now.
Fortunately now no one would be able to spread the infection, even if he wants to do so. The blood tests have pretty much advanced all over the world, and 99.99% of the blood banks can detect HIV-positive blood.
What's scary are the people who willfully infect others with HIV, fully knowing they are infected themselves. They do it out of spite, out of anger that the world's been unfair to them for giving them an incurable disease. That, or they just don't care as long as they get their libido satisfied.
That actually happened in the USA during the 1980s. At that time, HIV was more or less an unknown disease and there was no ARV treatment available. The homosexual associations in California urged the HIV infected gays to donate blood, so that more of the general public would get infected.
Their logic was that if HIV remained confined to the homosexual community, there will be no government funding to fight the disease. On the other hand, if it affects the general population, people will take care more about it. The tactic worked, as a large number of non-homosexuals became infected with HIV through blood transfusion.
Based on how USA couldn't handle it in 80s I wonder how South Africa going to handle it.
What's scary are the people who willfully infect others with HIV, fully knowing they are infected themselves. They do it out of spite, out of anger that the world's been unfair to them for giving them an incurable disease. That, or they just don't care as long as they get their libido satisfied.
That actually happened in the USA during the 1980s. At that time, HIV was more or less an unknown disease and there was no ARV treatment available. The homosexual associations in California urged the HIV infected gays to donate blood, so that more of the general public would get infected.
Their logic was that if HIV remained confined to the homosexual community, there will be no government funding to fight the disease. On the other hand, if it affects the general population, people will take care more about it. The tactic worked, as a large number of non-homosexuals became infected with HIV through blood transfusion.
Why HIV prevalence in some area but not on the other. Does certain population immune to HIV?
No one is immune to HIV.
It's interesting that such resistance and immunity are specific for the "white" population only. The reason is simple, these mutations were selected by plague in europe. It seems that genetic transplantation will be used to resolve this problem, methods of transplantation are under development yet.
What's scary are the people who willfully infect others with HIV, fully knowing they are infected themselves. They do it out of spite, out of anger that the world's been unfair to them for giving them an incurable disease. That, or they just don't care as long as they get their libido satisfied.
Why HIV prevalence in some area but not on the other. Does certain population immune to HIV?
No one is immune to HIV. HIV prevalence is higher in areas, where the chances of the infection turning to an epidemic is bigger.
The increasing prevalence of HIV combined with a large scale ebola outbreak would be catastrophic for the dark continent.
Ebola is confined to certain remote regions in Africa. It is not a wide-spread virus.
Uh apprently someone hasn't been paying attention to the news. The most recent outbreak is occurring in west Africa, a great distance from the traditional hot spot in the center of the country. Further the Reston outbreak occurred in monkeys imported from the Philippines. Taken together it probably has a wider range than we currently think.
But philippines got ebola cases?
The monkeys had it. Fortunately, while capable of infecting humans, the virus did not appear to be pathogenic. Even more frightening is that it appeared capable of being transmitted through the air. The point I was trying to make is that virology is a relatively new field of study. We really don't know that much about Ebola and probably underestimate the places we can find it and its cousins. For example, until the Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome outbreak in the Southern US in 1993, it was believed that Hantaviruses only were found in the Old World, particularly the far East.
The increasing prevalence of HIV combined with a large scale ebola outbreak would be catastrophic for the dark continent.
Ebola is confined to certain remote regions in Africa. It is not a wide-spread virus.
Uh apprently someone hasn't been paying attention to the news. The most recent outbreak is occurring in west Africa, a great distance from the traditional hot spot in the center of the country. Further the Reston outbreak occurred in monkeys imported from the Philippines. Taken together it probably has a wider range than we currently think.
But philippines got ebola cases?
The increasing prevalence of HIV combined with a large scale ebola outbreak would be catastrophic for the dark continent.
Ebola is confined to certain remote regions in Africa. It is not a wide-spread virus.
Uh apprently someone hasn't been paying attention to the news. The most recent outbreak is occurring in west Africa, a great distance from the traditional hot spot in the center of the country. Further the Reston outbreak occurred in monkeys imported from the Philippines. Taken together it probably has a wider range than we currently think.
Why HIV prevalence in some area but not on the other. Does certain population immune to HIV?
I strongly believe that some major plague or epidemic is going to wipe out a significant portion of the african race within the next hundred years.
An average African women gives birth to 7 children in her lifetime. The total population of Africa has crossed the 1 billion mark. Scientists expects that the African population will rise to 4 billion by the end of this century, thanks to generous food aid.
How many of those kids reach fertility age themselves?
Besides , that continent will not be able to support that population. And food aids might help 100 million to survive but how are you going to get food aid for 2 billions?
I strongly believe that some major plague or epidemic is going to wipe out a significant portion of the african race within the next hundred years.
An average African women gives birth to 7 children in her lifetime. The total population of Africa has crossed the 1 billion mark. Scientists expects that the African population will rise to 4 billion by the end of this century, thanks to generous food aid.
The increasing prevalence of HIV combined with a large scale ebola outbreak would be catastrophic for the dark continent.
Ebola is confined to certain remote regions in Africa. It is not a wide-spread virus.
I strongly believe that some major plague or epidemic is going to wipe out a significant portion of the african race within the next hundred years. They simply do not have the intelligence or the foresight to combat viral infections of this nature. 23.2 percent of South African black females ages 15-49 are infected?! That is insane! The increasing prevalence of HIV combined with a large scale ebola outbreak would be catastrophic for the dark continent.
HIV is not a serious issue if HAART is available. Diabetes mellitus is much more deadly, for example.
I disagree. The ARV treatment is unable to extend the life-span by more than 25 years max. If a person is infected with HIV at the age of 20, there is only a 1% chance that he will live beyond 45 years of age. Also, the treatment is ineffective for 10-20% of the population. Their CD4 count drops even after taking the ARV.
Diabetes mellitus, on the other hand mostly affects the elderly. So we are not much bothered about the life span figures.
It doesn't matter how deadly diabetes is since just having unprotected intercourse with someone (voluntarily or not) does not render the other person potentially infected.
Yep, but their children will be predisposed to this problem too. And nothing can change this at the current stage of progress.Anyway, there are many other diseases like malaria and african trypanosomiasis... All of them much more dangerous.
It doesn't matter how deadly diabetes is since just having unprotected intercourse with someone (voluntarily or not) does not render the other person potentially infected.
remember our previous discussion? 
Yes. Back then I said ANC was the problem. And right now, I'm saying the same.
HIV is not a serious issue if HAART is available. Diabetes mellitus is much more deadly, for example.
Yeah , South Africa was ruled by... people prior to being ruled by .... people.
Insert colors.
Insert colors.
Well... I don't want to generalize. The problem is much beyond the skin color. The economic situation in South Africa has worsened exponentially since ANC took over power in 1994. But the same can be said about Russia. What ANC did to South Africa, the same Yeltsin did to Russia. Look at what happened to Russia after 1991. At least South Africa didn't lose 15% of its population to alcoholism and suicides.
One of the poorest nations in the world (Moldova) is almost 99.99% White.
Well , Russia doesn't have a 15% hiv infection rate , nor 1/4 women raped at least once. And also I don't consider the situation for russian people getting worse compared to 198* period. I actually think they are far better know , living myself in Eastern Europe and since I traveled a few times into the former URSS.
Alcoholism was a problem in all eastern countries, and that was since medieval times.
You can't even compare Moldova to the countries in Africa, common. and it's on place 129 by gdp in the world , hardly the poorest. (China 89)
Let's face it , since South Africa shifted , it's going backways.
Also , lets see the opposite.... a .... guy running a country with a majority of .... poeple. You know who i'm talking about
And , does Detroit ring a bell? =)))))
remember our previous discussion?
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/04/02/south-african-hiv-prevalence-rises-on-soaring-new-infections/
6,400,000 people living with HIV? Is the ANC government anyway better than the previous apartheid government?
Quote
The prevalence of HIV/AIDS in South Africa is rising due to the world's fastest growth in new infections and a higher patient survival rate, according to a new health study. An estimated 12.2 percent of South Africa's population was infected with the HIV virus in 2012, compared with 10.6 percent in 2008, according to a survey of 38,000 people carried out by the country's Human Sciences Research Council.
Quote
The percentage rise was partly due to 400,000 new HIV cases in the year studied, the highest in the world, taking the total number of people infected in South Africa to 6.4 million. Young black African women were the worst affected, with 23.2 percent of females aged 15-49 infected, compared with 18.8 percent of men, the study showed.
6,400,000 people living with HIV? Is the ANC government anyway better than the previous apartheid government?
Jump to: