Why was the UN bloating the numbers of AIDS victims? Ignorance?

[babylonsister]

And if we can't depend on the UN, who should we be depending on? Inquiring minds...

UN reduces estimate of Aids victims by six million
James Bone in New York

The United Nations yesterday cut its estimate of the number of people infected with the Aids virus by more than six million.

The UN Aids agency revised its estimate of HIV cases around the globe from 39.5 million to 33.2 million, including 2.5 million children.

more...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article2910624.ece

[entanglement]

1. You use 'bloating' as if it were intentional

They are using more accurate surveying / data gathering techniques now, and have eliminated a possible sampling bias (bias used in the statistical sense). The new data does not alter the seriousness of the AIDS pandemic in any way. BTW, most of the correction comes from a *single* nation, India. Given the size of that country and the immense regional variation in sexual behaviors there, a correction of this magnitude is not surprising.

-entanglement

[babylonsister]

5. Thank you; frankly, that is/was my fear. I really want to

believe in the UN, and you've helped.

[Recursion]

2. Several reasons

1. The methodology for sampling was still from the mid '80s when we didn't have as good an idea of how the disease spreads (it turns out studying mostly middle class, mostly gay, mostly male, mostly white Americans doesn't always translate to well in dealing with mostly poor, mostly heterosexual, mostly nonwhite developing world populations... go figure).

2. When you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. The UN had (relatively) lots of money to go help AIDS, so AIDS was what they looked for. This is related to,

3. Frankly, money. 500,000 Africans die of malaria or TB and nobody cares. Call it a new scary disease and people send in money.

[Breeze54]

3. Umm... because 6 million have died

since * 's abstinence education only financial AID BS? :shrug:

[Warpy]

4. HIV testing is expensive and very difficult to do out in the bush

so the number was never more than an estimate based on spot checking.

At least it hasn't been revised UP.

That's something to think about on Thanksgiving.

[babylonsister]

6. Great logic, thanks, Warpy.

When you write, I listen. :)

[Warpy]

8. you can run into real trouble that way.

:hug:

[babylonsister]

7. Another question. Does this go on with every program? If so, it would

be nice if I ever saw communication in my lifetime again. I guess that's a dream. Talking to each other is such a no-no, or does anyone think that might change?

[spanone]

9. i think it's a case where the information becomes clearer and is gathered more efficiently