HIV coda

[JohnC]

This clearly fits in with my post about HIV/AIDS (http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?t=242912), but I think is interesting enough to warrant its own thread, and deals with the slightly different subject of the demographics of HIV infection in Australia.

The observation comes from John Murray, an associate professor in the school of mathematics and statistics at the University of NSW and the National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research.


If you are still worrying about this risk factor for your newborn son you will have plenty of time to advise him to be careful; the average age of men newly diagnosed with HIV through heterosexual contact in 2006 was 46 years of age. No man under the age of 24 was diagnosed with HIV from heterosexual contact in that year, while 10 men over the age of 60 were. Rather than thinking of circumcising your new son to reduce his risk of heterosexual HIV infection, you should instead be lecturing your father about safe sex!

Though this is extraordinary enough, it is even more amazing when one considers the differential circumcision rates. More than 70% of males under age 25 were intact, whereas at least two-thirds of males in the 40-60 age group were circumcised. Whatever factors are driving the pattern of heterosexual transmission of HIV in Australia (and we are only talking about 77 cases in total), circumcision status is not part of equation.

[Mrs Nietzsche]

How remarkable.

make me wonder htough... a 46 year old man is more likely to have not been tested for HIV for a long time (possibly ever) and is also more likely to have lied about homosexual contact (to hazard some guesses).

I must say that I noticed a *remarkable* lessening of care regarding STDs/ HIV etc between when I was footloose and fancy free in the early 90's (people were careful, condoms common) and a decade later... I feel young men these days are actually far less careful than they were a decade ago. I believe I saw some statistics that confirmed that recently re the spread of chlamydia, etc. I believe also that HIV is spreading a fair bit in the young female population?

Now I thinka bout it... perhaps middle-aged men are actually more likely to be having blood tests than young men, and are therefore having a higher detection rate.

All irrelevant to circumcision though............... apologies............

[JohnC]

I believe also that HIV is spreading a fair bit in the young female population?
Female hetrosexual HIV infection actually declined slightly from 2006 to 2007 (122 to 115). The bulk of these infections are women from high prevalence countries, who also pose the largest risk in terms of heterosexual contact for men.


Now I thinka bout it... perhaps middle-aged men are actually more likely to be having blood tests than young men, and are therefore having a higher detection rate.
Actually, regular screening is disproportionately of younger males.

[WorkingClassMum]

Thank you JohnC

I enjoy reading a balance to other posts

[Mrs Nietzsche]

I don't call that much of a decline, or much of a range to get a good feel for what would be happening there. I believe the dynamic is a bit different for women than for men, as women are so much more easily infected.

I assume younger men would be getting screened as they are concerned they've been exposed, whereas older men are more likely to be married etc... and possibly have it picked up in life insurance test or something maybe.

Anyway I find it very hard to believe circumcision has much to do with it all.

I wonder if there've been any cases of babies infected with HIV when getting circumcised.

[JohnC]

I don't call that much of a decline, or much of a range to get a good feel for what would be happening there. I believe the dynamic is a bit different for women than for men, as women are so much more easily infected.
No, but my point was there has been no recent increase among young women, and the overall numbers are pretty low. The dynamics are indeed different, including the fact that proportionately there are more women from high-prevalence countries than among men.


I assume younger men would be getting screened as they are concerned they've been exposed, whereas older men are more likely to be married etc... and possibly have it picked up in life insurance test or something maybe.
Sentinel monitoring indicates males 20-29 are three times more likely to have a HIV test than those aged 40-49 at an STD clinic.

Anyway I find it very hard to believe circumcision has much to do with it all.
That is the point. The fact that not a single case was reported among the least circumcised yet most sexually promiscous cohort tells us clearly that circumcision is utterly irrelevant to HIV infection in Australia.

I wonder if there've been any cases of babies infected with HIV when getting circumcised.
I don't believe so (it's different elsewhere). There are about 3-5 infant cases a year, almost all the result of vertical transmission (which is sadly preventible).