I’m so happy to see TED embracing sexuality as part of the human fabric of what they consider “Ideas Worth Spreading.” As my pal John Petit put it so aptly about this amazing presentation where HIV data is explains as it never has been before in history,
Dr Hans Rosling, a renowned Swedish health researcher, is know for presenting health data in amazing ways you’ve not seen before. At the last TED conference, he gave an incredible presentation on HIV in Africa and why the issue is far more complex and nuanced that you might expect. He’s also made the data available on the very cool GapMinder site where you can interact with the graph (caution it’s easy to spend a lot of time here.)
In his presentation, Dr Rosling argues that it’s not the number of sex partners that you have that matters but the concurrency (i.e., how many partners over a short period of time) that increases the HIV risk. (link, video via)
ChicksonSpeedSpotter,
At the risk of reiterating what John Pettitt and Abolitionist have already said, I must disagree with your wholly biased interpretation of Dr. Rosling’s lecture. As an Africana scholar and a sex-educator, I’m deeply troubled by the comments which you’ve made. At no point in the lecture does Dr. Rosling suggest that, “Poverty and the withholding of healthcare is the only cost-effective solution to the global AIDS epidemic” or “stop giving medical aid to poor African countries, let them all just die off and watch the balloon drop” (as you surmised).
Contrary to your inference, Dr. Rosling’s TED talk works to de-essentialize the the topic of ‘AIDS in Africa’ by using a framework of comparative statistics. In the lecture, he gives possible scientific reasons such as sexual concurrence and unprotected sex that could be factors of AIDS infection is South Africa. (This scientific interpretation is presented apart from the erred focus on race and place that has been historically invoked–hence his focus on ‘the mind’ at the end of the video.) Using the compiled data and the risk factors associated with concurrence and unprotected sex, Dr. Rosling places his emphasis on prevention (sparing the existence of an appropriate vaccine) because it is the only effective method of retarding the transmission of AIDS.
Now, I’m confused about your comments about condom use (not working) and your emphasis on the futility of protected sex. Given your other comments, I would venture that you are mis/under-informed regarding condom use and the effectiveness of protected sex. The most effective protection against AIDS transmission between sexual partners is the barrier method–and the condom is the most effective of such preventatives. I believe you have confused pro-protection sex-ed with abstinence-only education in this respect. (By the way, abstinence, in and of itself, does work…though it’s not frequently used.) Moreover, if you know of a more effective preventative method against AIDS (besides abstinence) then I would love to know about it.
In addition, Dr. Rosling mentions “hetero-sexual” sex as a lower-risk point than any other type of sex. Though I don’t support this terminology, I believe he’s referring to the lower risk factors associated with vaginal sex. (Perhaps this is due to the language barrier?) In case you’re not aware, anal sex (sometimes referenced as homosexual sex) is associated with higher risk factors because of micro-tears that occur in the lining of the rectum (this also can occur with rough vaginal sex).
Moreover, you contentiously accuse Dr. Rosling of wanting AIDS victims to ‘be left to die’ without drugs; I do not believe this is the case. Conversely, Dr. Rosling shows that there is not correlation between the treatment of AIDS patients and inhibiting the spread of AIDS. When Dr. Rosling does refer directly to drugs (“Focus is now back on prevention. It’s only by stopping the transmission that the world will be able to deal with it. Drugs is too costly.”), the context shows that he was referring to immediate-response drugs that can ward off the virus before infection settles in the immune system. Perhaps you were unaware that such a treatment exists. In this regard, he has already pointed out the downside to drug-based treatment–the drugs are not expensive, however the infrastructure for the immediate administration of such drugs and accessibility to such service would be costly.
In conclusion, your ‘reading’ of the lecture reflects a pre-existing view of the AIDS situation around the world which Dr. Rosling’s words do not reflect. Perhaps, you have been mis/under-informed. I know for certain, however, that such mis-guided and pre-judgmental comments such as yours detract from the groundbreaking research surrounding, not only Dr. Rosling’s work, but the AIDS epidemic in Africa. I recommend that you seek further information regarding sexual education and world health issues before you condemn any other professionals with your biased interpretation.
Hope this helps,
Orrlizzie
P.s. Thanks again to John Pettitt and Abolitionist for your comments! It’s good to see that I’m not only person who took issue with Chicks’ interpretation.
“his statement to conclude the first and second quote you have is that treatment is not going to realistically stop the aids epidemic. This is true. The vaccine is not a final solution to this problem.”
duh Einstein, if vaccines were the solution to epidemics we wouldnt have all this commotion we have rightnow with the flu. Like, tell me st i didn’t know.
So you insist that his “solution”, going back to prevention, is going to help us? If you believe prevention works then you are as hopelessly uninformed and out of the loop on this issue as Hans the balloon man is. We have already tried prevention, and prevention does not work. If Hans is such an expert on the issue of AIDS, he should know this already. But Hans has an agenda to sell, a white european agenda that seeks to save up money for the global economic crisis by reducing aid to dying black africans, so he ignores the facts. And you are still here defending him.
I bet if Hans was up there advocating abstinence, which we also know doesn’t work, carnal nation wouldnt consider giving him exposure. But since he is a scientist with the cool hi tech presentation, whatever he is saying must be right, right? Scientists advocating a return to prevention are as misleading to the general public as religious zealots advocating abstinence.
“I’d suggest you stop watching things with implications already set in your mind so that you can apply your prejudgment to situations to which they do not apply”
I’d suggest you start watching things with your rational analytical skills already set in your mind so that you can apply your skepticism and ability to think for yourself to situations to which they ought to apply.
Way to selectively watch the video, Chicks. For example, his statement to conclude the first and second quote you have is that treatment is not going to realistically stop the aids epidemic. This is true. The vaccine is not a final solution to this problem. That’s the whole point of this talk. We need a better solution. We can’t just consider aids a finished problem.
I’d suggest you stop watching things with implications already set in your mind so that you can apply your prejudgment to situations to which they do not apply.
I didn’t see it that way at all – when I posted the video I did so because it explained the data in a way I’d not seen before. It helped me understand the dynamics of the aids epidemic in a ways I hadn’t before.
I didn’t see it as a ‘let the africans’ die message – I saw it as a “we need to deal with prevention”, which means dealing with cultural issues that governments don’t want to address, or this will carry on and many will die because nobody can afford to treat that percentage of the population long term.
Sure, colored balloons bouncing up and down the screen are cute and stuff, but let’s look at what he’s actually saying while the bouncing balloon show is going on behind him.
“If people are treated, they won’t die and these percentages won’t come down because they can survive 10 to 20 years”
Implied: it’s better to just let AIDS victims die off, than to give them medicines, cos that way they won’t be able to infect others, and numbers of AIDS infections will naturally steep lower. The balloon will come down. This is very cynical.
“In the lower-income countries, the rates fall faster… because people still die”
Implied: It’s it great that these poorer countries can’t afford medical care, and just let their AIDS victims die off? Look, the balloon is coming down. Contrary to popular belief poverty is actually reducing AIDS, because poor people just die. Poverty is the best solution to AIDS.
“Of all people who receive treatment only 60% are left on treatment after 2 years. It’s not realistic, with life-year long-treatment for everyone in the poorest countries.”
Implied: let’s stop giving medical aid to poor countries, because that will only keep AIDS victims alive so that they can infect others, the balloon won’t come down, and besides, “only” 60% of the victims are still on drugs two years into the treatment, like that’s a low number for a poor country. This man is so cynical, he doesn’t even want the drugs for the 60% who need them and are using them.
“Focus is now back on prevention. It’s only by stopping the transmission that the world will be able to deal with it. Drugs is too costly.”
Implied, and this is so cynical: It’s only by allowing infected people to die off, rather than keeping them alive with drugs and costly medical treatment for 10 – 20 years, that we can stop transmissions and make that damn balloon come down.
“Had we had a vaccine, or when we will get the vaccine, that [would then be] something more effective. but drugs are now very costly for the poor. Not the drug itself, but the treatment, the care which is needed around it.”
Implied: stop giving medical aid to poor African countries, let them all just die off and watch the balloon drop. Poverty and the withholding of healthcare is the only cost-effective solution to the global AIDS epidemic. And of course, once they are all dead, there is no longer a pressing need to even work on a more cost-effective vaccine, cos they are all dead now anyway, the balloon has come down, so we don’t really need to waste even more research money developing a vaccine.
“we will not only have the heart, the money, but we will also use the brain”
I don’t know what these statements suggest to you Violet, but the impression I get is that Hans is certainly no fan of non-judgmental sex-ed and healthcare.
He wants healthcare professionals to go back to the old method of prevention, meaning back to lecturing people (“you know what, you *really* have to use condoms!”, like duh). We already know that doesn’t work. People will just say “oh, the condom snapped” so that they don’t have to hear THAT lecture all over again. Old school lecturing-based prevention does not work. May I suggest that Hans stop fooling around with graphics software and start using his own brain instead of bouncing balloons up and down to wow his audience?
Hans says, and this is an underlying theme that he repeats over and over, just let infected Africans die off instead of giving them costly medical care, lack of proper healthcare in a poor country is the best way to stop the spread there, and since we don’t have a vaccine ready right here right now, let’s not waste our time with drugs and expensive treatment in the mean time, let’s “use our brains” and bring back old school lecturing that we already know doesn’t work.
I am pretty sure infection numbers arent lower in Western countries because we just let all our AIDS victims die off since 1983. If keeping the lepers alive for 10 to 20 years was whats causing the increase in infections, then we in the West should have had the highest percentage of infections of the whole world, because we are better at treating more people and better at keeping them alive longer. The better we got at treatment, the more lepers we kept alive (to supposedly go out and infect others, as Hans suggests), the higher our balloon should have rose. And yet we are in the bottom 1% average range. Contrary to what Hans claims, keeping AIDS infected people alive is not what’s exacerbating the problem here.
Why is Carnal Nation linking up to this white guy in front of a white crowd telling them to just let poor Africans die of AIDS cos that is the most cost-effective way to stop transmissions? How cynical is that? Let’s not be fooled by Hans Rosling the balloon man.