Was debating with a colleague on HIV prevalence in Thailand vs western countries and looked up some data.

 

Found a bizarre fact. Look at the chart. Saw it on this site  https://www.avert.org/professionals/hiv-around-world/asia-pacific/thailand

 

Surely it is an error. Or have I interpreted it wrong?

 

Everything in the article makes sense until this chart. 

 

And the rest of the data on the chart makes sense except the "unmarried" and "married" part.

 

What do you reckon?

 

 

 

I would interpret it as 24 % of new infection will be Heterosexual sex (married), because one or both in the marriage also belong to one of the other categories. Husband injects drugs or has sex with a man etc, then comes home and infects wife. The unmarried does appear very small compared to married, maybe more safe sex before you get married, after you get married and are exclusive you stop using protection.

Also there is still a percentage of Thai girls who wait until married.

thailand takes the #1 spot in cheating with mia noi/kik/kep/others

13 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

I would interpret it as 24 % of new infection will be Heterosexual sex (married), because one or both in the marriage also belong to one of the other categories. Husband injects drugs or has sex with a man etc, then comes home and infects wife. The unmarried does appear very small compared to married, maybe more safe sex before you get married.

Possibly.

 

I would think the 4% and 24% should be the other way around.

 

Though, it would still be surprising if unmarried heterosexual sex accounted for the same number of infections as drug use and prostitution combined.

39 minutes ago, poanoi said:

thailand takes the #1 spot in cheating with mia noi/kik/kep/others

Yeah, makes you wonder.

 

I was under the impression that the general rule was that only high risk category people were likely to get HIV and Syphilis (MSM, needle sharers, CSWs....) due to how rare they are, whereas low risk category people (the average heterosexual) were only likely to get common things (clamydia, warts, gonnorhea).

 

I understand there are exceptions to the rule, though.

28 minutes ago, FruitPudding said:

Possibly.

 

I would think the 4% and 24% should be the other way around.

 

Though, it would still be surprising if unmarried heterosexual sex accounted for the same number of infections as drug use and prostitution combined.

I think the 4% is a reflection of the wait until married. A large percentage still do that. Its not that they are not getting HIV, its that they are not actually having sex. If they are having sex it probably falls into the sex worker/with a sex worker catagory. or they dont remain a unmarried couple for long, get married at a young age.

This is very common in Asia.

Man gets HIV from a prostitute and then infects his wife; most of the cases on this 24% are women.

Less commonly, man marries an hiv + woman and eventually gwts infected by het. Rarer but fies happen.

Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

1 hour ago, Sheryl said:

This is very common in Asia.

Man gets HIV from a prostitute and then infects his wife; most of the cases on this 24% are women.

Less commonly, man marries an hiv + woman and eventually gwts infected by het. Rarer but fies happen.

Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Interesting point.

 

Though to be fair, although Thai men rank #1in the world for infidelity, Thai women rank #2, according to a study.

 

And HIV transmits easier to women, than vice versa.

 

And I wonder how much of it is to do with the man having sex with transgender prostitites, carrying the highest risk statistically (then their wives).

6 hours ago, FruitPudding said:

Interesting point.

 

Though to be fair, although Thai men rank #1in the world for infidelity, Thai women rank #2, according to a study.

 

And HIV transmits easier to women, than vice versa.

 

And I wonder how much of it is to do with the man having sex with transgender prostitites, carrying the highest risk statistically (then their wives).

 

If you are having sex within a relationship where your partner is hiv positive then it is actually more likely that you will become infected than if you were having a number of one night stands, because the other partner is definitely infected, and there is repeated exposure.

 

I believe female to male transmission is extremely low.

 

In my opinion, the stats coming out of Thailand should be treated with extreme caution, because they can run contrary to what is happening elsewhere.

 

 

 

 

 

I believe female to male transmission is extremely low.

 

 

Let's talk numbers, what are they?

 

"Extremely low" could be 1 in 10, 1 in 100, 1 in 1000, 1 in 1000000?

1 hour ago, scubascuba3 said:

 

 

 

 

 

Let's talk numbers, what are they?

 

"Extremely low" could be 1 in 10, 1 in 100, 1 in 1000, 1 in 1000000?

I don't believe 1 in 10, for example, could ever be considered extremely low.  This is a complex area with myriad factors and I don't believe there are currently figures available.

I don't believe 1 in 10, for example, could ever be considered extremely low.  This is a complex area with myriad factors and I don't believe there are currently figures available.

It's better to have an idea of the numbers before you quote "Extremely low".

Try these figures

The obvious explanation is that they caught it from a toilet seat.

16 hours ago, Sheryl said:

This is very common in Asia.

Man gets HIV from a prostitute and then infects his wife; most of the cases on this 24% are women.

Less commonly, man marries an hiv + woman and eventually gwts infected by het. Rarer but fies happen.

Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

 

While this is a reasonable theory, it just occurred to me that if this were true, wouldn't the sex worker category be far higher?

 

And surely the marriage sex transmission would still be lower than sex worker transmission (if indeed it is because of prostitution that some wives are being infected by their husbands).

 

Still doesn't add up nomatter how I look at it.

4 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

It's better to have an idea of the numbers before you quote "Extremely low".

Try these figures

 

1 in 2500 is pretty low, especially considering all other modes of transmission. I wouldn't say extremely low though.

 

However, if you couple that data in with the odds that your partner is positive in the first place, then the overall odds would be extremely low.

2018 and people still don't know that getting anal sex up your bum hole is the major risk for man & women... foreign dna , aka SPERM going into your bloodsteam weakens your immune system ... you follow healthcare rules, take lots of antibiotics, which ... lowers your immune system and there you go... what does HIV & AIDS stand for again ?   IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME ....  but even experts don't seem to get that... yeah plus the needle guys & girls

5 hours ago, FruitPudding said:

 

1 in 2500 is pretty low, especially considering all other modes of transmission. I wouldn't say extremely low though.

 

However, if you couple that data in with the odds that your partner is positive in the first place, then the overall odds would be extremely low.

 

Agreed, but it does no good using tables that may or may not be accurate.

 

The largest and longest study ever done concluded the risk to be low, however how that may be defined by someone is another matter.

 

As I said, there are myriad factors and nobody really knows, so bandying around figures that may not even be accurate to an individual situation is pointless.

 

 

 

 

6 hours ago, dickjones2018 said:

2018 and people still don't know that getting anal sex up your bum hole is the major risk for man & women... foreign dna , aka SPERM going into your bloodsteam weakens your immune system ... you follow healthcare rules, take lots of antibiotics, which ... lowers your immune system and there you go... what does HIV & AIDS stand for again ?   IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME ....  but even experts don't seem to get that... yeah plus the needle guys & girls

 

I'm curious.  How can you get "anal sex" other than "up your bum hole".

 

Surely "SPERM going into your bloodstream" would strengthen "your immune system" since they would be recognised as antigens and provoke an immune response.

 

 

 
Agreed, but it does no good using tables that may or may not be accurate.
 
The largest and longest study ever done concluded the risk to be low, however how that may be defined by someone is another matter.
 
As I said, there are myriad factors and nobody really knows, so bandying around figures that may not even be accurate to an individual situation is pointless.
 
 
 
 

So reviewing data provided by experts that have come up with figures is somehow less useful than you saying the risk is extremely low..you'll be saying don't listen to experts next.

Why don't you find some useful stats you can provide when you say things like extremely low risk, otherwise all it is regurgitating what probably other BMs have posted

2 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

So reviewing data provided by experts that have come up with figures is somehow less useful than you saying the risk is extremely low..you'll be saying don't listen to experts next.

Why don't you find some useful stats you can provide when you say things like extremely low risk, otherwise all it is regurgitating what probably other BMs have posted

It's a one man argument really, isn't it?  Do I really need to be a part of it.

 

All I wrote is : 

I believe female to male transmission is extremely low.

 

But yes, I simply don't believe the figures are accurate, and most people interpret them as racing odds, which is wrong.  Plus, it would appear that experts have widely different views themselves.