Comments on: How Does D.C.’s HIV Rate Compare to Other Cities?

By: HIV Hypocrisy: Activists Join Government to Denounce Porn «

HIV Hypocrisy: Activists Join Government to Denounce Porn « — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 07:47:21 +0000

[...] a legal industry that has a lower rate of disease than the rest of the country. Which city has the highest rate of HIV infection in the U.S.? A city obsessed with screwing everyone, but which has no porn [...]

By: STOP PRESS: 40% DECREASE in HIV in Washington DC « HIV/AIDS Skepticism

STOP PRESS: 40% DECREASE in HIV in Washington DC « HIV/AIDS Skepticism — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:45:56 +0000

[...] New York Times (“all the news that’s fit to print”); Washington’s City Paper, of course: “How Does D.C.’s HIV Rate Compare to Other Cities? ‘. . . twice as high as New York City and five times as high as Detroit,’ . . . . wasn’t [...]

By: Mike Riggs

Mike Riggs — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:49:05 +0000

@JohnD "First aid" may have been too ambiguous (though I didn't think so)--I was referring to car accidents, stabbings, shootings, bicycle accidents, or any situation where a stranger may conduct first aid and come into contact with another person's blood before EMS workers arrive. I used it as an example (one of many) where getting an HIV test would be a wise decision. And sure, if you're married/dating/partnered with/to someone who might be using IV drugs without your knowledge, go get that HIV test. But I don't think everyone should get regular testing regardless of circumstance.

By: JohnD

JohnD — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:29:57 +0000

It is obvious by Mike's comments that he has no idea what he is talking about. You can't get HIV from giving first aid to someone. You can get HIV from having a husband or wife, who you think is being faithful, go out and hook up or do IV drugs and come back and have unsafe sex with you. The costs of an HIV test today are minimal, especially compared with the cost of someone not finding out and spreading the disease.

By: Mike Riggs

Mike Riggs — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:40:05 +0000

So everyone should waste time and public dollars to get tested for a disease that--barring infidelity, risky sexual behavior, drug use, or a handful of other behaviors--is difficult to contract in order to reduce the stigma for people who are at risk? I don't follow.

Re: How many people who claim to be “married and faithful” aren’t?

I have no idea, but I agree that the liars should go out and get tested. And I agree that the same would be in the best interests of people in the body modification community, and people who like to hook up, and people who use drugs, and people who have practiced first aid on someone else.

But the case for routine, universal HIV testing without regard for individual circumstances doesn't hold up.

By: Amanda Hess

Amanda Hess — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:11:10 +0000

Part of the appeal of comprehensive HIV/AIDS testing is to reduce the stigma attached to going into the clinic. Anyone can contract HIV, not just drug users and people who have had multiple partners in the past year. How many people who claim to be "married and faithful" aren't?

By: Babs

Babs — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:48:28 +0000

Obviously from the looks of things, people are not getting tested, forget worrying about war or being attacked in the US, we are already at war, it is called AIDS. Yes, I do think that we should go back to the Health Department's way of enforcement and treatment.

By: Jamie

Jamie — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:30:19 +0000

Ummm... Babs... I hope you are joking. If for some reason you aren't, then I think you should consider, ever so briefly, the consequences of a law like that (which would be totally unconstitutional anyway, and about as popular as prohibition).

Thought process of individual considering HIV test:

1) If I test positive, I will be on a public list
2) Therefore everyone will know I have HIV and I could be discriminated against
3) DECISION: I'm NOT going to get tested, ever.

Result: Nobody ever gets tested; HIV rates skyrocket.

I suppose your next move would be to require mandatory HIV testing every three months, followed by concentration camps and/or santioriums for people with HIV, herpes, or a history of shingles outbreaks.

By: Babs

Babs — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:14:11 +0000

I think that it should be mandatory that if a person test posititve for HIV that we have a website that the person's name gets placed on. If you contracted a disease 15 years ago, the doctor made you contact all of the partners and if they refuse to get treated, the Health Department would come to their perspective jobs, your house, ect until they found you. This is not rocket science, stop spending money to travel to other countries that have nothing to do with the District of Columbia and get some funding for this initative.

By: KCinDC

KCinDC — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:27:32 +0000

NPR this morning said DC ranked fifth among US cities in AIDS rate (as opposed to HIV, which the reporter said there wasn't complete data for), behind San Francisco, New York, Miami, and Ft. Lauderdale.

By: Jamie

Jamie — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:09:29 +0000

Your original question is a good one, but the response you got doesn't answer it. You can't just compare to another city because DC is unlike any other city.

Most cities include larger suburban areas outside city limits that would be the equivalent of Montgomery County, PG County, and Northern Virginia, which would obviously dramatically change the statistics in DC.

If you look just at Manhattan for example, it's a different picture:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/ah/ah.shtml

1 in 25 men living in Manhattan (4%)
1 in 5 black men age 40-49 in Manhattan (20%)

I couldn't find the source data for this NYC analysis to do a more apples-to-apples comparison with the numbers reported for DC.

But what is clear, is that demographics probably have a LOT more to do with infection rates than DC's particular policies and programs.

By: Mike Riggs

Mike Riggs — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 19:45:05 +0000

How is it sensible for all District residents to get tested regularly for HIV? Shouldn't testing be limited to people who have multiple partners or are with a new partner, people who work with human fluids/waste, intravenous drug users, and other at-risk types? Saying that everyone should get tested is about as advisable as telling all men, regardless of age, to undergo annual prostate exams.

Or maybe LL was hoping that D.C. leaders could serve as good examples, even if some of them getting regular HIV tests (Fenty's married and faithful, right?) is sort of moot?