News Slant	News Slant Archive

Two reports that HIV infection rates are far higher than previously thought in the US may not mean what they seem.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) offered revised figures at the end of August suggesting there were nearly 56,000 new infections in 2006 — 40 percent more than previously claimed.

Around the same time, New York's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene announced that New Yorkers were being infected at three times the rate of the national average. They said that according to new figures nearly 4,800 people in New York contracted HIV in 2006.

View our poll archive

The new higher figures are based on new technology that differentiates between recent infections and old ones, together with changes in statistical analysis. The CDC said they don't think the new numbers reflect an increase in the rate of infection — rather that everyone had been underestimating the rate all along.

The rate of new infections, the CDC said, "has been stable since the late 1990s."

The underlying science got lost in media reports, which torqued a sense of alarm. At least one AIDS expert appears intrigued with the new math.

"The CDC has effectively retroactively rewritten our understanding of the entire AIDS crisis," says Dr Sean Cahill, policy director at the Gay Men's Health Crisis in New York City.

What was New York's response to the new transmission stats? Dramatic cuts in HIV prevention funds as well as Medicaid funding for those with AIDS.

"The people who made the decision to cut our funding did so knowing that these new figures were on the way," Cahill said, citing funding reductions as high as 42 percent for some programs.

These may be tough economic times, Cahill granted, "but other agencies didn't get the same level of cuts."

Peter Bochove is the president of the Hassle Free Clinic in Toronto which provides anonymous testing and treatment of STDs. He monitors public policy in many places and agrees the budget cuts represent the priorities of politicians.

"This is a no-brainer," he said. "Most of the people being infected are gays, blacks and drug users, not rich white heterosexual Republicans. Is anyone really surprised?"

Bochove says he is wary of these new figures, contending the higher numbers are based on an unproven new statistical formula. "It may be an educated guess on their part, but it is still a guess and I would urge caution before we jump to conclusions."

Indeed, the New York Health Department grants that "the analysis technique is new and the estimates may be imprecise."

This same technique for extrapolating the data has led to the conclusion that New Yorkers are being infected at a higher rate than people in other parts of the country.

"This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone," says gay New York activist Bill Dobbs. "New York City is full of gay men and blacks — precisely the people most affected. This is exactly what you would expect from the demographics."

But Dobbs also urged people not to get carried away and panic. He pointed out that only 4,800 people were infected in New York in 2006. According to the Health Department, only half of those were men who had sex with men. "In a city with a population of more than eight million, 2,400 people is not what I would call a runaway train," Dobbs says.

Author Profile:  Joseph Couture

Joseph Couture is a journalist based on London, Ontario.