Well, one of the big news items these days, is the "re-adjustment" of HIV infection statistics coming out of UNAIDS. Apparently, the numbers that have been used over the last couple of years have been too high and that the new numbers are significantly lower. For example, the worldwide infection numbers dropped from 40 million to 33 million. (news reports nyt, bbc)
In many respects, this begs the question, "So what?" These numbers are still the sort that can merit strong words such as "genocide" and/or "carnage" to attempt to let ordinary individuals like ourselves understand the horror that is on the ground. Does this downgrade really matter, or is it just one of those things that academics can endlessly argue about.
Argue about things like:
Is 33 million really different from 40 million in terms of what this might mean to the graveness of the situation?
Does this number change translate to skepticism as a whole to the AIDS pandemic?
Were the original numbers a reflection of poor stats (kind of what it sounds like, since numbers were obtained primarily from projectiobs from pre-natal centres, which I think common sense would say is a totally biased sample), or a deliberate inflation to vie into fund raising needs?
I heard Stephen Lewis say a few words this morning, and I think he pretty much nailed it by commenting that it would be a shame if all of this talk of statistics took away from the problem at hand. That is, AIDS is a global problem of horrendous nature from a variety of perspectives including those that speak in numbers.
Anyway for you local Vancouver readers, don't forget that this week, there is a whole lot of stuff going on at UBC in lieu of the World AIDS Day coming up in December.
- Log in to post comments
My wingnut buddy explains to be that since the UN is wrong about ADS, so they are also wrong about Global Warming. Frauds, he call them all. Then blathers about scientists who exagerate the dangers to increase their grants and budgets ...
I can't help but wonder if your reaction would have been quite so "Ho hum" if the announcement had been that it was 47 rather than 40.
I agree with Lewis's concern, but surely accurate stats are important. I'm a bit surprised to see a scientist writing an append such as this sloughing off a correction of better than 15%.
Hey Scott, the proper numbers are important (don't get me wrong). But this has been buzzed around so much that the really crucial stuff seems to be getting lost in the mix (what can folks do to help). It's almost like the story presumes that people can't relate to the notion that sometimes the standard estimates of the past can be better done as methodology, funding, etc improves. That doesn't sound like such an outrageous thing.
I guess, I'm one of the optimistic types who doesn't think that there's something sinister behind the inflated numbers. And yet, you get the sense that that is one of the main directions of the story.
Hi..
I'm a high school student.. and I was just randomly browsing through scienceblogs, when I came across this article..
What are "projectiobs from pre-natal centres"? And how does using statistics from these centres make the results highly biased?
Thank you,
Sunrise
Also, looking at the link to the BBC article given, the article does state that AIDS is still a huge problem, in its defence... so it is not completely as though attention is being deviated from the problem of AIDS, by the publication of statistics and so on... just my two cents. :-)
"So the message is certainly not that the world can stop worrying about Aids.
Almost 7,000 people are newly infected with HIV every day. Aids is still one of the biggest challenges facing global health."