One in five gay, bisexual men in major US cities have HIV: report - Macleans.ca
 

One in five gay, bisexual men in major US cities have HIV: report

And nearly half of them don’t even know it


 

US health officials are reporting that nearly one in five gay and bisexual men in 21 major cities in the U.S. are infected with HIV—and nearly half of them are unaware of it. Young men and especially young black men are least likely to know they’re infected, a study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found. The study looked at 8,153 men who have sex with men in 21 U.S. cities, and found that 19 per cent of gay men are infected with HIV. Meanwhile, 28 per cent of gay black men are infected with HIV, compared with 18 per cent of Hispanic men and 16 per cent of white men. Black men were also least likely to be aware of their infection in the study: 59 per cent did not know they were infected, compared to 46 per cent of Hispanic men and 26 per cent of white men. The youngest men were especially at risk of being unaware.

Reuters


 
Filed under:

One in five gay, bisexual men in major US cities have HIV: report

  1. What is so frustrating is that the Harper government cut funding to the national aids strategy here in Canada. Money was re-allocated for a Vaccine initative that was subsequently scuttled.
    An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure…..if we don't re-focus, re-invest and spend strategically now, the costs on our health care system in the future will be prohibitive.

    Jim

    • Why should taxpayers have to pay for idiots who refuse to practise safe sex?!

      • Wow. For the same reason we pay for people who get skin cancer from being out in the sun. When we offer universal health care, it means we have to treat everyone. Even the people we disagree with.

        • Oh how generous of you. Funny this use of the word "we". I don't remember offering universal health care to idiots who sunburn themselves or have unsafe sex. So how about you pick up the tab for these morons? Thanks, and if you don't I'll just move somewhere I'm not obligated to provide for others.

          • I don't remember offering universal health care to idiots who sunburn themselves or have unsafe sex.

            Personally? I`m sure you didn't personally offer to pay for them. I think that, once again, it was that pesky democracy thing getting in the way of our libertarian utopia.

            Thanks, and if you don't I'll just move somewhere I'm not obligated to provide for others.

            Perfect. Out of curiosity, which country will that be exactly?

        • I suppose we could all move deep underground, then no skin cancer. However, those "idiots" will still not practice safe sex. So we will avoid skin cancer, but not HIV. Taking responsibility for one's own stupidity is a pretty hard to do, i know, especially when the govt. is there to foot the bill. It is people like these (including smokers and fatties) that are making a joke of "universal health care", and eating into the resources available for people who have genuine health issues. I know you will not agree with me, but there is nothing i can do about that.

          • It is people like these (including smokers and fatties) that are making a joke of "universal health care", and eating into the resources available for people who have genuine health issues.

            Of course it is. But what's the alternative? The point of universal health care is to ensure that a person's ability to pay for medical treatment isn't determined by their income. We have compensated somewhat with 'sin taxes', but there isn't really much more we can do and still retain universality.

          • i am not talking about income. where did i mention that at all!? i am talking about THE UNWILLINGNESS TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ONE'S ACTIONS. You can have all the money in the world or you can be a ragless pauper, if you are not doing what you can to take care of your health, then there is NO REASON why anyone else should have to pay for you being taken care of. There is always a choice, and there are options available to everyone, so there is no excuse and it is inexcusable to put the rest of us through the wringer for their lack of judgement.

          • This whole thread is about the costs of health care. Also,

            especially when the govt. is there to foot the bill

            there is no excuse and it is inexcusable to put the rest of us through the wringer for their lack of judgement.

            Regardless, other than ranting about people who don't live their lives like you want, what is your point exactly?

      • Because taxpayers will pay a lot more for treatment. In anticipation of your rebuttal that taxpayers shouldn't pay for the treatment, the obvious charter issues aside, I am sure the cost to society in terms of lost productivity would be greater.

        Also, way to contribute to the stigma that is only contributing further to this crisis.

        • A totally evidence free post. Also, what is wrong with stigmatizing unsafe sex?

  2. There needs to be a renewed all-out PR campaign to encourage condom use. Condoms, condoms, condoms. It's generally known "out there in society" that safe sex prevents the spread of HIV, but it's not emphasized with the urgency it should be.

    • Who doesn't know this? It is near universally acknowledged.

      • I know it's known– but are people actually following through and using them?

    • I think it's called 'condom fatigue' or 'prevention fatigue' – basically, people start to become deaf to a certain message because it is repeated so often, or believe that an HIV diagnosis is now not as serious as it once was because of the new medication available. That's the theory anyway.

      • It's not so much 'condom fatigue' but the mindset that sex is much more enjoyable without protection and 'so what if I do get HIV – there are drugs available.' PAID FOR BY TAXPAYERS WHO CANNOT FATHOM THE RISKS THAT ARE INVOLVED!!!! Duh!

  3. How is this even an issue? It shouldn't be so difficult to convince people to use condoms.

    • Yeah, because condoms are what everyone wants when their having sex…

      People will never practice safe sex all the time (just consider all the unwanted pregnancies in the world).

      • Yeah, because condoms are what everyone wants when their having sex…

        If I'm having sex with a stranger, a condom is exactly what I want. You do understand that AIDS kills you right? You understand the consequences of pregnancy, yes?

        Seriously, how is this even an issue? Are people just f-ing retarded?

  4. 1 in 5 gay men. Really? When you stop and think about it, this is unbelievable. No really. It's unbelievable. All this recent debate about prohibiting gay men from donating blood… apparently the HIV tests are still so inaccurate, the ban must remain in place. Well, if the test is so inaccurate, why is it still being used as the basis for these studies?

    I find it interesting how these studies are conveniently released when funding is cut to the national health agencies. And always involving minority communities, who in turn feel threatened and are the strongest advocates to demand more government funding. Let's not forget the French Institute of Health conveniently published a similar study just a few weeks ago. I think this has less to do with science and more to do with overstaffed government agencies trying to hold on to their jobs. The Swine Flu scare pumped a nice sum into the system and left many countries with unused vaccines. Although recently statistics have shown overall HIV infection is down, it's very convenient to target communities with vocal government activism (ah, excuse me, "high risk groups"), to replace the funds lost on the Swine Flu crisis.

    Ten years ago, an agency in India admitted to "inflating the numbers" in order to raise awareness and get more funding. Without true transparency in these agencies, I doubt if we will ever know the facts. To pretend that this huge increase is due to a lot of "stupid people" within those communities is ludicrous: even if some engage in what's been called "high-risk" behaviour, most have been scared to death, taught correctly, and are even more careful than so the "low risk groups." A 20% infection rate is not credible; something else is going on here…

    • It seems to be a great way to hold on to and budget (or more than likely, ask for increases in) the money which was curiously earmarked and awarded one month ago.
      http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/1123

    • Full report here: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/mm5937.pdf

      Interesting yet very important facts from this report. On p. 6, "The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations.

      First, … positive HIV status might have been underreported …thereby inflating estimates of MSM unaware of their infections…

      Second, 135 MSM who reported being HIV-positive but who had a negative or indeterminate HIV test result were excluded from analysis because of the possibility that they had false-negative NHBS test results…

      Third, comparisons of the NHBS-MSM datasets collected during 2004–2005 and 2008 should be made cautiously, because this analysis did not control for demographic differences in the samples, which might have influenced the percentages reported."

      And here's the most interesting one of all:

      "Finally, these findings are limited to men who frequented MSM-identified venues (most of which were bars [45%] and dance clubs [22%]) during the survey period in 21 MSAs with high AIDS prevalence; the results are not representative of all MSM. A lower HIV prevalence (11.8%) has been reported among MSM in the general U.S. population."

      In other words, the CDC report itself says its results are not accurate (in particular because of the "possible false readings" of the HIV tests), and moreover are NOT representative of all gay men, as the media is reporting. In fact, they went to gay venues in 21 cities "with high AIDS prevalence." It's as if the researchers were purposefully looking for skyrocket-level numbers, but could do no better than a 20% average.

  5. Yes. Pierre Trudeau. Responsible for the spread of HIV. Also, I heard Jimmy Carter is to blame for the increase in bedbugs, and Tommy Douglas is on the hook for the resurgence of TB. Regan, though, gets kudos for the decline of hangnails.

  6. could you help us out with a study, any reputable study, that even points to your belief that "abundant funding" has actively affected choices people make in the back of a car?

  7. For f**k ;s sake, HIV didn't exist when Trudeau said "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." At that time people didn't know about HIV or STD's and people were not as promiscuous as they are today. Do you think its only young 'leftist' teens and preteens who are indulging in falatio in Canada and the US? I guess if it were up to you, we'd abandon all health care, let only those 'elites' that can afford health care receive treatment.

  8. Or an alternative interpretation is that teh journalists who summarized and packaged the report sensationalized it by not also reporting the limitations disclsoed by the authors; researchers typically disclose the limitations to their research and constraints on generalizability early on…p.6 is relatively early in the report – how did the journalists miss this? Shoddy journalism, with little depth and context, typical of a lot of the writers' work these days.