?

Log in

No account? Create an account
~生まれた町で夢見てきた...~
"In the city of my birth, I had a dream..."
Statistic of the Day (So, which is the "weaker sex" again, oh Moral Crusader???) 
10th-May-2006 07:47 am
Winter
Worldwide, 80 percent of women newly infected with HIV are practicing monogamy within a marriage or a long-term relationship. - Newsweek, May 15, 2006
Comments 
10th-May-2006 12:09 pm (UTC)
Does that mean when they got infected, or how they live after?
10th-May-2006 12:11 pm (UTC)
"Newly infected" would mean "when." It wasn't obvious enough? >_<

*sighs*
10th-May-2006 12:22 pm (UTC)
It could be read two different ways, it really should say, 80 percent of women newly infected with HIV were practicing monogamy within a marriage or a long-term relationship when they became infected. For the sake of clarity ^_^;

But anyhow, yeah, I believe it, that's how my cousin got infected >_<.......
10th-May-2006 12:26 pm (UTC)
But then it suggests that, after they're infected, they no longer are. Which most likely isn't the case.

"Newly infected" and "are" seems totally unambiguous to me. I don't know how you're reading it. ^^;;;
10th-May-2006 12:32 pm (UTC)
I'm reading like someone who's used to research studies and wants things very specific ^_~ The original language says they are newly infected, and they are now in monogamous relationships.. It could mean they became infected and made the decision to be monogamous.. It's just not precise enough on their status at the actual time of infection..

But then it suggests that, after they're infected, they no longer are.

Not really, it doesn't say anything about after infection, just at the time of..

And actually, it should also say specifically that they were infected through sex.. It's the logical assumption, but there are other ways to get infected...
10th-May-2006 12:36 pm (UTC)
They CAN'T be more specific, you understand, because there's no way to know for absolutely certain WHEN and HOW the virus was contracted. When they test positive for AIDS the first time, they are practicing monogamy. The statistic simply CAN'T logistically be phrased as you suggested earlier.
10th-May-2006 12:44 pm (UTC)
Fair enough, but that does leave it with the same problems of when and how, and relationship circumstances... If I had to edit, I would make note of that uncertainty. Though it's doubtful that people who are very promiscuous and careless would suddenly become monogamous instantly after discovering their infection status ^^
10th-May-2006 12:49 pm (UTC)
they probably can't release much confidential survey data, and anyway
that statement was probably meant to support some article to some advantage in there anyhow :x
10th-May-2006 12:54 pm (UTC)
Yeah, I'm sure the "at the time of" statistic would be pretty damn close to that 80%, but these little details bug me because most people will read that as actually meaning that 80% were monogamous at the time of infection.. Too many years in school having to be very specific about what statistics actually say ^_^;;
10th-May-2006 12:56 pm (UTC)
So.... School is evile. ^^;;;;
10th-May-2006 01:40 pm (UTC)
Pretty much, it makes you a little over analytical at times ^_^;
11th-May-2006 07:47 am (UTC)
Your wires are getting crossed. ^_~ That sort of citation isn't appropriate for journalistic endeavors (different methodologies for fact-checking, definition, etc.), which is where this statistic comes from.

On the other hand, statistics are ALWAYS worded to be persuasive; they're never, as far as I can tell, wholly impartial, and, as far as persuasion goes, I think this one works nicely. XD
11th-May-2006 12:34 pm (UTC)
Yeah, academic research is about (in theory) finding the truth, while journalistic takeoffs on such research are more about pushing a point...

In your dissertation, at least in our format, you have one chapter which is just statistics with no interpretation.. Like, here's the means, here's the test results, accept or reject hypothesis.. Later you get to say what you think it all means, and try to con everyone else into believing it ^_~
10th-May-2006 01:05 pm (UTC)
that does leave it with the same problems of when and how, and relationship circumstances

Which is why it says "within a marriage or long-term relationship." Marriage could've happened yesterday, but "long-term," at least, speaks for the past as well. There is always uncertainty when it comes to biology--that's understood by all experts without clarification. But, yeah, they can't say "were practicing monogamy when infected" because that would mean that they knew in all cases--scientifically provable--exactly when and how the infecting happened.

But the fact of the matter is that this statistic points to the trend that you're supposed to assume that it does--that monogamy is actually a risk factor, not a protective at all, when it comes to women and contracting HIV.
10th-May-2006 01:38 pm (UTC)
Well, they could use self-reporting, with the usual disclaimers... But that can be very unreliable, especially with stuff like this ^^

that monogamy is actually a risk factor, not a protective at all, when it comes to women and contracting HIV.

Overall, I guess your highest risk factor would be sexual involvement with any male ^_^;;;
11th-May-2006 07:33 am (UTC)
*laughs* But that uncertainty is already built into the wording! And, the fact of the matter is, for the great majority of these women, what it is IMPLYING is most likely exactly what's actually the case--that they got infected by their straying husband/partner. Not much in the way of deception. It's just that to confirm that sort of thing is tricky in the extreme; if both are HIV-postive, who's to say she didn't give it to him, etc. etc. etc.
10th-May-2006 12:12 pm (UTC)
er. So a lot of straying husbands?
>B
10th-May-2006 12:14 pm (UTC)
Evidently. *grr*
10th-May-2006 12:29 pm (UTC)
Babies born hiv positive are just as sad. :/
10th-May-2006 12:30 pm (UTC)
*nods* Yeah, and what's worse is that there are treatments to block infection of the fetus--but most HIV-positive pregnant women around the world don't have access to it.
10th-May-2006 02:40 pm (UTC)
I did not know this! Wow. :( That makes it 100x more depressing.
10th-May-2006 05:05 pm (UTC)
My cousin got that, her daughter is 13 or 14 now, with no signs of HIV..
10th-May-2006 12:23 pm (UTC)
Or husbands sharing needles, etc..
10th-May-2006 02:46 pm (UTC)
That was my thought too. *shakes her head and sighs*
10th-May-2006 02:49 pm (UTC)
It's nice to know you can count on your husband. *insert sarcasm here*

You know, there was a recent episode of House that had a similar case. The couple were arguing that they couldn't have a sexually transmitted diseases because they're been married for so long. Turns out husband did it and the wife stormed out so as not to kill him^^
10th-May-2006 03:24 pm (UTC)
Forget TV. Remember my host mother in Korea? :P
10th-May-2006 03:53 pm (UTC)
I try not to think of her. I can't remember the last time I disliked someone so much without even meeting them^^
11th-May-2006 05:57 am (UTC)
We briefly covered this in my Women Studies class. It get better! ♥ The logic goes something like this:

Women should only have sex for reproduction within monogamous marriage.

HIV/AID = Bad
Correlation= Women who have HIV/AID are slut, bad, etc.

Therefore, most prevention programs advocate:
Marriage: abstinence, fidelity. Magical immunity.
Condoms for prostitutes. Only they contracted sexually transmitted disease.

Notice the conspicuous lack of focus on MEN'S responsibility in the AID epidemic!

^_______^
11th-May-2006 07:25 am (UTC)
*nods* One of the things that I note in retrospect now is that no one bothered to explain levels of transmission risk in any explicit fashion to us back in middle/high school. Fact of the matter is that having sex WITH MEN (nevermind your own gender) is a bigger risk than having sex with women. Which of course means that its the guys who do most of the spreading...but SHHHH! we don't talk about that.
This page was loaded Apr 26th 2018, 9:26 am GMT.