Few Americans with HIV have the virus under control

[leigh.bess.toad]

A new report issued by CDC today, in conjunction with World AIDS Day on Thursday, shows that only 28% of the 1.2 million estimated Americans with HIV have it under control. 20% of that 1.2 million do not even know they have it. A bit disheartening if you ask me. As for me, everyone should be tested and regularly.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45478404/ns/health-aids/#.TtV7EFayBhJ

[KMEM]

Is that the same 48% that don't pay taxes that M2 keeps talking about? Of course, HIV isn't humorous and, yes, everyone should be tested as part of their routine blood tests, if not more often. Everyone, not just those who might be or think they might be at risk. BUT, the problem as outlined in the link is two fold; one, not being aware which means not taking a test and two, not taking the full course of Rx which course basically means the rest of your life. Do you have a cure in mind for not taking responsibility?

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[leigh.bess.toad]

Do you have a cure in mind for not taking responsibility?

 

Unfortunately, no. It is an individual responsibility -- both to themselves and to their partners. Seeing the apparent increase in the number of bareback videos, especially amateur videos, some in our community don't seem to worry too much about HIV. And then you have the fatalistic viewpoint of some I've heard about: "I'm going to get it anyway so I might as well get it and get it over with". And yet I would wager many of these same guys don't bother being tested either.

 

I guess I'm just a bit disheartened that after all these years, with the advent of the cocktail, and the repeated messages about testing, that the numbers are what they are.

[+ sam.fitzpatrick]

I've never understood how the CDC estimates the number of individuals with HIV and don't know it. Is this a realistic number, overstated, or underestimated?

[doitb4ugo]

I've never understood how the CDC estimates the number of individuals with HIV and don't know it. Is this a realistic number, overstated, or underestimated?

 

I am not sure but I know when I was diagnosed at my clinic in Boston...I was tested anonymously but as soon as I tested Positive, I had to fill out some forms to notify one or more state agencies tracking the HIV+ instances....I could lie about my name etc and the clinic turned a blind eye but the paperwork needed to be filled regardless of what name etc. I used....If I understood correctly...this data was submitted to the CDC.

[leigh.bess.toad]

I've never understood how the CDC estimates the number of individuals with HIV and don't know it. Is this a realistic number, overstated, or underestimated?

 

I guess this is really what epidemiologists do -- make their best estimate based on the available data they have. Is it a guess? Sure, but an informed one. Or as we call it my office, a SWAG - scientific wild assed guess. Is it an over or under estimate? We'll never really know.

[+ deej]

I've never understood how the CDC estimates the number of individuals with HIV and don't know it. Is this a realistic number, overstated, or underestimated?

 

1) The sciences of polling and extrapolation are very much sciences and generally quite accurate given adequate data.

2) There is a vast siphon gathering statistics (data) into the CDC feeding the statisticians (and various other 'icians from various disciplines).

 

I've seen localized estimates for Los Angeles saying that over 25% who are HIV+ don't know. Of course, the population is more dense and more likely than the national average so I suppose it makes sense that the national number would be lower.

 

Having seen some of the modeling horsepower that goes into these estimates even before they turn the first computer on, I'm actually inclined to put a lot of faith in their accuracy. Election polls usually have a margin of error of 4-5%, and they work with VASTLY smaller sets of data. CDC's estimates are much more accurate.

[seeker630]

1) The sciences of polling and extrapolation are very much sciences and generally quite accurate given adequate data.

2) There is a vast siphon gathering statistics (data) into the CDC feeding the statisticians (and various other 'icians from various disciplines).

 

I've seen localized estimates for Los Angeles saying that over 25% who are HIV+ don't know. Of course, the population is more dense and more likely than the national average so I suppose it makes sense that the national number would be lower.

 

Having seen some of the modeling horsepower that goes into these estimates even before they turn the first computer on, I'm actually inclined to put a lot of faith in their accuracy. Election polls usually have a margin of error of 4-5%, and they work with VASTLY smaller sets of data. CDC's estimates are much more accurate.

 

It seems to me that there's a fundamental difference here - how do you verify the accuracy of the estimates? There's no winner to validate the estimate.

[orbital sander]

It seems to me that there's a fundamental difference here - how do you verify the accuracy of the estimates? There's no winner to validate the estimate.

Sadly, most eventually get sick, end up in the hospital or go to the Dr. and then they are reported to the CDC and that validates the estimates...but there is no winner that is for sure.

[seeker630]

Sadly, most eventually get sick, end up in the hospital or go to the Dr. and then they are reported to the CDC and that validates the estimates...but there is no winner that is for sure.

 

Good point, but there's still no way to verify that the estimates of incidence of infection are right or wrong, or the estimates of how many are infected but don't know. How do you estimate how many people are infected but not yet symptomatic?

 

I suspect that

[orbital sander]

Good point, but there's still no way to verify that the estimates of incidence of infection are right or wrong, or the estimates of how many are infected but don't know. How do you estimate how many people are infected but not yet symptomatic?

 

I suspect that

 

I would guess it would be the last 20-30 years of history and some fancy computer work as deej alluded to.

[seeker630]

I would guess it would be the last 20-30 years of history and some fancy computer work as deej alluded to.

 

Yes - and regardless of the accuracy, the real answer is 'too many!'.

[justaguy]

Seeker, your is a good question. I don't know enough to give you an answer. I know just enough to know that the answer is a very complicated one having to do with statistics and proabability and that included in these figures is a calculation of accuracy (similar to the plus/minus figure you see included in poll numbers). It's a science. The best I can tell you is that this type of science has withstood scurtiny.

[Guest Merlin]

The precision of the estimate is not the point, which is that a very large portion are not being treated.

[justaguy]

Merlin,

 

IMO, the precision of the estimate is a big point. A great many of us grew up in an era when we didn’t need scientists to tell us that something was very wrong and getting worse. We knew that fact from the direct experience of our lives, from knowing people who were ill and from going to funerals. For me, nothing brought it home like going to see the quilt stretched out on the Mall and in that sea of cloth searching for the sections that memorialized good friends.

 

Times have changed. These days HIV is not an automatic death sentence. With medication, people can live a relatively normal life for a very long time. How long is not known as it has been too soon to conduct longitudinal studies.

 

Merlin, you and I remember what it was like. For us the numbers have a meaning that it cannot have to people who did not live through that time. People in their 20s and 30s can have no such memory. All they have are these empty numbers and the question of their accuracy.

 

Again IMO, if we are to succeed in the battle against HIV, the numbers have to be given meaning, the illness needs to be given an image as potent and real as the quilt was for me. Without that image, I believe that ignorance and complacency will continue to grow and the number of cases increase.

[+ Charlie]

In the first couple of decades of AIDS, studies of gay men usually showed that the strongest motivator to get tested or to change one's sexual behavior was actually knowing someone who had AIDS. Now that medications allow many men who are HIV+ to lead what appear on the surface to be fairly normal lives, and often die of what appear to be other causes, I suspect that is not so effective. Young men in particular, who never dealt with the horrors of friends dying terrible deaths, are harder to influence with abstract statistics.

[Irish69]

A new report issued by CDC today, in conjunction with World AIDS Day on Thursday, shows that only 28% of the 1.2 million estimated Americans with HIV have it under control. 20% of that 1.2 million do not even know they have it. A bit disheartening if you ask me. As for me, everyone should be tested and regularly.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45478404/ns/health-aids/#.TtV7EFayBhJ

 

I Agree! Test Regularly, Know Your Status & Know The Status Of Those Your Sexually Active With!

 

Rick

[+ Travis69]

Many don't get tested because they don't have health insurance. The test may be free but getting low cost medications or even paying for the low cost medications is not always that easy for some.

[+ Travis69]

If someone who recently tested positive would like to respond, my questions would be why did it take them so long to get tested and is taking the medications really hard on your body? This might help others understand the problem.

[Irish69]

Many don't get tested because they don't have health insurance. The test may be free but getting low cost medications or even paying for the low cost medications is not always that easy for some.

 

Travis69,

 

I don't have Health Insurance either. I go to a health clinic & it only cost me $50 for the test & its Anonymous. Take the 1st step & get tested, if its negative then medications won't be an issue. If others would share information about low cost medications & how to get them I think it would be most helpful for anyone who is positive.

[jimboivyo]

I Agree! Test Regularly, Know Your Status & Know The Status Of Those Your Sexually Active With!

 

Rick

 

amen

[Steven_Draker]

I go to a health clinic & it only cost me $50 for the test & its Anonymous.

 

Many Gay and Lesbian Community Centers in the US offer free and anonymous HIV testing. Google to find the Community Center near you.

 

It's 9:00 pm here and I just got back from the local free testing clinic. They were literally swamped with people today.

 

Let me second and third what Irish69 said. Know your status. Get tested frequently for HIV and other STDs.

[+ deej]

Many Gay and Lesbian Community Centers in the US offer free and anonymous HIV testing. Google to find the Community Center near you.[/color]

 

And in communities underserved by Gay and Lesbian Community Centers, Planned Parenthood fills the void. (If you're lucky enough to have them.)

[KMEM]

I Agree! Test Regularly, Know Your Status & Know The Status Of Those Your Sexually Active With!

 

Rick

 

OK, how does one "know" this?

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[seeker630]

And in communities underserved by Gay and Lesbian Community Centers, Planned Parenthood fills the void. (If you're lucky enough to have them.)

 

I'm fortunate to live in an area with several medical schools, and at least one of them offers free testing at weekly community health clinics run by med students (with supervision).