digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at reuters.com —

More than 56,000 in U.S. infected with AIDS each year

reuters.com — WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New estimates show that least 56,000 people become infected with the AIDS virus every year in the United States -- 40 percent more than previous calculations, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on Saturday.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • lucy22, on 08/03/2008, -0/+10That is pretty scary. High amount of people being infected. Still must practice safe sex and all that!
    • robot1122, on 08/03/2008, -5/+3(56,000/300,000,000)*100 = 0.0187%
      That's not too bad. That means if you were shoved into a room with 10,000 random people, statistically only one of them would have AIDS...
      • thePTS, on 08/03/2008, -3/+5no?

        that would mean if you lived in a village with 10,000 random people, statistically, only one village inhabitant would get AIDS every year.
      • Evilblobs, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1Thats not bad either.

        Cancer rates have to be higher than that.
    • JettaMan, on 08/03/2008, -3/+3The headline should read "56,000 idiots in US infected with AIDS each year"
    • SheilaNoya, on 08/03/2008, -3/+1"Safe Sex" practices might be more common if the Evangelicals would stop trying to ban sex edcuation, condoms, etc.

      Not talking about it isn't going to make it disappear, and having a policy of telling people "just don't have sex" is certainly not working either.
  • logandurand, on 08/03/2008, -2/+37Are condoms really so hard to use?
    • dudefaceguyman, on 08/03/2008, -15/+3Seriously, who DOESN'T like to dress his GI-Johnson in his scuba gear?

      What lady doesn't like to hear,

      *Kshht* -- "Sir! We're approached the so-called vagina!"

      *khhst* -- "Infiltrate 4th base private and retrieve the stolen documents!!"

      ksssHhht -- "Sir, yes sir! 30 seconds of air left. I'm gonna have to move fast!"
      • MrSarcasm, on 08/03/2008, -1/+7wait, what?
      • acmaurer, on 08/03/2008, -1/+9Yeah, sorry, but I think you made your point after "gear?"
        Nice try tho
      • xkorbin, on 08/03/2008, -1/+4I don't like to.
      • estacado, on 08/03/2008, -2/+5What's the difference between "kshhht" and "khhhst"?
      • JustFender, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1ones spelt "kshhht" the others spelt "khhhst"
      • dudefaceguyman, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1..

        I was a little drunk last night. Excuse me.
    • curseoflou, on 08/03/2008, -6/+3YES
      • BOFH2, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1Well you probably be part of that statistic soon, unless you already are.

        I do realize that you are probably being sarcastic.
    • estacado, on 08/03/2008, -14/+1Condoms only work 85% of the time.So every time time you have sex, keep count. Every 9th time, might as well not use one because it ain't gonna work anyway.
      • BoneheadFarker, on 08/03/2008, -0/+11Oh for ***** sakes, keep the propaganda out of it. Condoms aren't 100%, but they aren't as bad as you make them out to be. And people are going to have sex whether you like it or not, so they might as well protect themselves the best they can.

        Everyone just keep *****, but leave estacado out of the fun...
      • xkorbin, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2Those are statistical odds; pooled across the entirety of people surveyed or polled using them. You could be getting the majority of the luck.. You can't say "every 9th time." A condom cold work for me every time, and never work for someone else. You just can't use those statistical probabilities to judge every situation. What you're measuring is average effectiveness, among a whole. You can't say why it would fail, what would fail, there are just too many variables to even consider your argument valid.
      • BlackCow, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1And the reason why they do fail is always due to the user not using them properly. But they are the most effective protection against disease.

        Way to spread misinformation!
      • LacanX, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1From what i've looked up if used correctly they are ~98% effective(No Idea on S.D.) failures are more from people being dumb and doing things like using expired condoms, using two condoms, keeping them in their 150deg.C car then inherent flaws.
      • Ymeg, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1Condoms, if used correctly, have a very, very high success rate.

        But marriage progoganda likes to include the numerous people who can't read instructions.
      • KingGorilla, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1I think you're using percentages wrongs
    • cutekelvins, on 08/03/2008, -9/+3Yes, it's very tight for me.
      • GamerX, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3that's what HE said! (sorry, couldn't resist the urge)
    • Springdaddy, on 08/03/2008, -1/+6According to these numbers, we must have some retards out there who don't know how to put them on.
  • SammyJr, on 08/03/2008, -14/+5With HIV infection rates so high in the United States and the United States having a very high circumcision rate, it makes me wonder why the WHO is so desperate to recommend circumcision in Africa. Given these new figures, it isn't doing ***** here.
    • domokunt, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2someones "doing" *****
    • dsenman, on 08/03/2008, -2/+8Your chance of getting infected though unprotected uncircumcised six with an infected female is about 1%. If you are circumcised it is closer to 0.5%.

      You can get it either way, but your chance is cut in half.
      • czeman, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3Pun intended?
      • dsenman, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3No, but I'll take it
      • SammyJr, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1Or you could simply wear a condom and not worry about cutting your dick.

        dsenmen, with the American circumcision rate so high, how do you explain our extremely high HIV rate? If circumcision made any difference, you'd expect our rate to be lower than Europe which doesn't circumcise anyone.

        I call ***** on the studies. If the study produces results that are grossly inconsistant with the real world, then you throw out the study. Would you stick your cut dick in an HIV positive hole and expect to walk away clean?
      • dsenman, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1Sammy, You're assuming everyone is starting off with same number of infected people. If Americans are getting more infections per capital than Europeans, and Americas are snipped, then obviously Americans have more cases of AIDS to start with, or are not using rubbers, etc. Your comparison makes no sense.
    • DaDrake, on 08/03/2008, -3/+4Yes lets mutilate another individual's genitals, who can not speak for themselves, based on shaky science.

      There is a reason why a growing number of hospitals are banning the procedures. Morally its disturbing... and medically its bull *****.
      • DiggRational, on 08/03/2008, -3/+1Have you actually bothered to look at the evidence? No. You haven't. Based on shaky science? Why? Can you explain further?

        If you took one minute to examine the current evidence you will know that, as dseman rightly puts it, circumcision cuts the risk of contracting HIV by around 50%.

        Here's a quick intro for you...

        http://www.avert.org/circumcision-hiv.htm

  • rawnzilla, on 08/03/2008, -2/+29These are just estimates, so they're not entirely HIV positive about this?
  • DaDrake, on 08/03/2008, -3/+17Go to Washington DC --- not only is it the murder capital (thanks to draconian gun laws) but one in 20 people has HIV.
    • colonelbuckshot, on 08/03/2008, -3/+5Rates of murder, rape and HIV are roughly proportional to the black population, not gun laws.
    • DeFex, on 08/03/2008, -5/+1"With more guns sold and registered per capita than anywhere in the U.S., Nevada is a gun state - always has been.

      It also is the gun-death state. According to the Center for Disease Control, since 2000, Nevada has led the nation with an average of 26 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people."

      and thats thanks to what?
    • peestandingup, on 08/03/2008, -0/+7"not only is it the murder capital"

      Hey, 1985 called. They want their statistics back.

      DC isnt even close these days as being the "murder capital" in the US, sonny. That would be New Orleans, Gary Indiana & Detroit.
  • trumpcard, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2Damn those street carriers.
  • kelmaster1, on 08/03/2008, -9/+7Inaccurate, 56,000 is NOT the rate at which people are being infected, 56,000 is the total number of people with AIDS. In the article (if people actually read articles anymore) : "CDC stressed that actual infection rates have not risen but said better methods of measuring newly diagnosed infections and extrapolating these to the general population led to the higher estimates".

    Nothing big, it's just another statistical analysis
    • fabkebab, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3The first line of the article says

      "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New estimates show that least 56,000 people become infected with the AIDS virus every year in the United States --"

      What article are you asking us to read?
      • nosamesame, on 08/03/2008, -1/+0What he's saying is that 56,000 have been becoming infected every year, just that in years past they didint have the data on it like they do now.
    • RP53, on 08/03/2008, -0/+4Perhaps you should go back and reread the article. It clearly states 56,000 NEW infections.
    • calcio0fan, on 08/03/2008, -0/+4"CDC's first estimates from this system reveal that the HIV epidemic is -- and has been -- worse than previously known. Results indicate that approximately 56,300 new HIV infections occurred in the United States in 2006," the CDC said in a statement.

      What exactly am I missing here..?
  • footodors, on 08/03/2008, -4/+4It's relatively easy to not get aids.
    I don't have aids and I'm not even the second smartest in my family!
  • dungar, on 08/03/2008, -8/+6sexual revolution bears fruit
  • CryTekEmployee, on 08/03/2008, -10/+1lol
  • ViperCTW, on 08/03/2008, -7/+9Am I the only one that thinks, in the grand scheme of things, that's really not that many people?
    • DiggRational, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2Well, perhaps as a percentage of the total population, it is not very high.

      But.....that's 56,000 people who should not be contracting HIV every year.

      What is dangerous, is that those who contract the virus tend (though not always, I must stress) to participate in high-risk behavior (no condom/ multiple partners/ etc). That means the spread of HIV increases quite rapidly. 56,000 people every year can quickly become 100,000, then 150,000.

      But even so...damn...56,000 people is how many 9/11s? Every year.
    • elcoqui121, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2One person is too much. Yes you can get HIV through other situations that don't involve having sex. But those situation are so low that the majority of the people that are getting HIV are just being irresponsible. People need to learn how to control themselves and not continue to spread this virus.

      56,000 a year is a lot of people ignorant people. Just doesn't make any sense that so many people are making these bad choices.
  • godseyeview, on 08/03/2008, -9/+1HIV = AIDS - Fact Or Fraud?
    http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3412063/
    if u have VeohTV
    http://www.veoh.com/videos/v6457883Anw7AcCJ
  • calcio0fan, on 08/03/2008, -2/+10and 23,000 of those are black?
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/07/29/bl ...
  • tao52nyc, on 08/03/2008, -2/+4That represents about 2/1000th of 1% of the total US population. Not exactly an epidemic. While I agree the effects of the disease are heartbreaking, there are a lot bigger killers in our society, like cancer, heart disease, and auto accidents, to name a few.
    • DaDrake, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2Actually in DC its consider an epidemic. For some reason, DC is the hot spot of HIV in the USA.
    • DiggRational, on 08/03/2008, -1/+2True - it is not the bigger killer. Indeed, even in developing countries, malaria, malnutrition and diarrhea kill more. But unlike in developing countries, which require massive amounts of resources to try to stem the incidence rates, in the US mostly all that is needed is widespread education campaign.

      Though the diseases or killers you mentioned do have lifestyle overtones (the ratio between genetics and lifestyle differs depending on what you look at though), HIV - like all STDs - is clearly a behavioral disease. Because of this, at the very least it needs more public awareness and education campaigns.
      • twateo, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2Education??? Do you really think the 56,000 people that get infected a year have no idea that the activities they are participating are dangerous and may lead to HIV or AIDS?
      • DiggRational, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1@twateo - I've always battled myself with your point. You're right - most people have some idea about HIV/AIDS. In fact, even in Botswana - one of the worst hit countries in the world (over 30% prevalence rate), there tends to be widespread knowledge on how HIV/AIDS is contracted.

        But I think it comes down to two points:

        1) People who are participating in risky behavior generally do not believe 'it can happen to them'. HIV/AIDS is an abstract notion, and the risks are not fully understood. Education should be targeted to ensure that people know risks are not abstract.

        2) People may know how HIV/AIDS can be contracted (although you'll be surprised - some people think if you withdraw you're safe, or that you can 'tell' if a person has HIV or an STD), but are not rational enough to take precautions. So it's about education and rationing. And probably the only way you can improve people's rationing is if you educate them (when they are young).
  • estacado, on 08/03/2008, -2/+5Do we have to wait until HIV mutates into a zombie virus before doing something significant about it?
  • Junkey, on 08/03/2008, -1/+10Since when did anything involving sex interest digg users?
    • Carl306, on 08/03/2008, -4/+2I'd bet a lot of Digg users watch porn. Porn involves sex.
  • cutekelvins, on 08/03/2008, -1/+1AIDS medicine just got better. That's it.
    • DiggRational, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1The figures state incidence rates, not prevalence rates. If it was prevalence rates, than yes, you would have to factor in that HIV/AIDS drugs are more effective and can therefore increase the prevalence figures.

      But incidence rates are new infections. Therefore, HIV/AIDS drugs have nothing to do with the rate of incidence (barring that people 'relax' their behavior because HIV is no longer seen as a killer, and therefore participate in non-safe sex)
  • czeman, on 08/03/2008, -0/+5Wrap it or slap it.
  • DanPlainview, on 08/03/2008, -2/+1Are you HIV positive that this is the case?
  • nosamesame, on 08/03/2008, -7/+4Sounds like its becoming a black thing.

    "AIDS in America today is a black disease," says Phill Wilson, founder and CEO of the institute and himself HIV-positive for 20 years. "2006 CDC data tell us that about half of the just over 1 million Americans living with HIV or AIDS are black."

    How long before Olberman does a skit on the CIA handing out aids lolly pops to black children
    • nosamesame, on 08/03/2008, -2/+1What? Im being dugg down for posting facts that are readily available from dozens of news sources?

      Keep burying your heads in the sand and all you will get is more aids in your ass.
      • gobbleplex, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1The problem is that the moment a person characterizes a disease that is transmitted by a certain set of behaviors as a 'thing that those other people get' is the moment that person lets down their defenses and becomes yet another statistic.
  • saqer, on 08/03/2008, -9/+3Safe sex is a joke really. Many, in the heat of the passion end up going skin even with condoms on the dresser next to them.

    Send condoms to people in the mail and the AIDS rate would still be this high.
  • Dunhamzzz, on 08/03/2008, -3/+10Time to close the pools.
  • Rudegar, on 08/03/2008, -3/+3proof that the "don't ask don't tell" don't work :P
  • McBrewster, on 08/03/2008, -4/+4And yet the Bush Administration wants to cut funding and spend the money on starting wars.

    Clearly: The AIDS epidemic is not over people!


    • manbearpig1, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1And what the hell would more money do for this? People are just stupid and you can't do anything about it. More money will not educate people, nor will we develop a cure for this disease.
  • Carl306, on 08/03/2008, -1/+5Wrap it before you tap it.
  • Spyder2k, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1Don't worry, there's at least a couple cures on Digg per week to fix that.
  • hapax, on 08/03/2008, -3/+14Abstinence is clearly the answer.
    Digg me down!
    • lived666, on 08/03/2008, -0/+6Abstinence works but it goes against human nature. The overwhelming majority of the population of the world will never practice it.
      • DeFex, on 08/03/2008, -2/+5let evolution do its thing.
      • cnot3, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3I don't know, it's been working out pretty well for the average digg user.
  • austinl7, on 08/03/2008, -0/+0It's always disconcerting to read the latest HIV/AIDS statistics. I just read an article about abzymes as a potential cure. Let's hope we can find more new and innvovative drugs to add to the prevention and treatment arsenal.
    Austin
    http://drughealth.blogspot.com/2008/08/hiv-hope-an ...
    http://drughealth.blogspot.com/
  • hotweiss, on 08/03/2008, -3/+2And remember that 1 in 5 HIV victims try to infect others intentionally.
  • hellride66, on 08/03/2008, -1/+1are they talking about hearing aids?
  • warlax27, on 08/03/2008, -2/+5This is bad, but its nothing compared to SUPER AIDS!
  • vonbun, on 08/03/2008, -4/+0HAH! That number is just 0.01% of America people... piss in snow.
  • mrsupercomputer, on 08/03/2008, -2/+0***** AIDS
  • nastronomical, on 08/03/2008, -1/+2and how many people get died from cold and the flu last year?
  • metaperl, on 08/03/2008, -6/+2HIV/AIDS is a hoax - http://www.aliveandwell.org/

  • Switchnig, on 08/03/2008, -3/+3EVERYONE HAS AIDS
  • futureisours, on 08/03/2008, -7/+2just have sex with white women and you're mostly safe from AIDS.
  • zeabu, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1Is there anything the US hasn't underestimated?
  • cavie2002, on 08/03/2008, -1/+6no one on digg has to worry about getting aids
    • Springdaddy, on 08/03/2008, -1/+1Majority of people on DIGG probably have never seen the opposite sex naked. Shame.
  • SemiSarcastic, on 08/03/2008, -1/+1We're all going to die...
  • Sp00nMan, on 08/03/2008, -0/+4I'd really like to know what percentage of the cases of AIDS in this country are gay people and drug users.
    • Springdaddy, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2I would love to see those statistics...
  • bbqsalad, on 08/03/2008, -0/+5whoever ***** that monkey probably never expected this.
  • dieguchi, on 08/03/2008, -0/+0No one becomes "infected with AIDS" -- AIDS is not a virus. You become infected with HIV that later (usually within 10 years if ARVs are not taken) advances into an advanced state referred to as AIDS. HIV = infection; AIDS = disease. It's disappointing that Reuters can't get this basic fact right. How long has it been since we've known this??
  • btrues, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1That's surprising considering there is a new cure for AIDS every week.

    ...at least on this website.
  • tomarocco, on 08/03/2008, -3/+1AIDS...the great grandaddy of conspiratorial inside jobs like 9/11 and Anthrax. Why do these things always emerge under GOP administrations?
  • cyclades, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1Yes, but how many are infected with Aids AND Fail?
  • morepowerr, on 08/03/2008, -0/+0When every one has it it will no longer be a disease. It will then be an inhaired trait.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.