Horace Heffner wrote:
It is perfectly logical that condom use will slow the spread of aids. It does not take an expert to see that. Further, the more the onslaught is delayed, the larger the number of people who will be saved by medical advances if and when they come.
You are missing the point. People are only saved by medical advances in rich nations. In most of the world there is no treatment at all -- not even aspirin. This means the use of the condom not only slows the spread of AIDS; it reverses it. People who get the disease die off rapidly, or they become too sick to have sex.
In advanced countries such as Japan where there is treatment and universal health care, AIDS is not increasing. The number of infections in Japan is holding steady at 12,000, with fewer than 500 deaths per year. The onslaught has not only been delayed; it has been ended, mainly by the use of condoms. There is no longer any threat that AIDS will become endemic in Japan, even though the society is rife with prostitution. There would be no threat from AIDS in the U.S. if we had universal health care and sane sex education. Unfortunately a fifth of our people do not get proper care. This is reflected in health statistics such as chronic disease, infant mortality, and longevity, which are far behind other major developed nations, not to mention Brunei, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain and Cuba. (Overall the U.S. is number 30 in infant mortality, and it is the only developed country in which the numbers are getting worse.)
If condoms did not exist, and someone invented them now, everyone would assume this means the end of the AIDS epidemic. It would be considered a cure. A treatment which reduces the chances of getting an infectious disease by a factor of 10 or 20 will eventually eliminate the disease. This rivals the effectiveness of the measles vaccine, which 98%. (http://www.ilshrestha.com.np/vaccine.html) Vaccines are seldom 100% effective, plus there are always a few people who refuse to be vaccinated, but despite this gap vaccines eventually eliminate an infectious disease. Condoms would eliminate AIDS if they were widely used, even though individuals would still be at risk, and many would still die from condom failures.
The principle conclusion I've drawn is that no action should be taken, especially a misleading action, which draws people out of safe populations and into populations at risk.
People do not have sex because you "suggest" they should, or you reassure them it is safe. Nobody "draws them out." They have sex no matter what, at all times and places, even when Draconian penalties are imposed for adultery. In Africa, nature has imposed the most Draconian punishment imaginable: agonizing death by AIDS. Everyone there knows that, but they go on having sex anyway. If that threat is not enough, what makes you think advice would affect their behavior?
Having said that, I agree that advice and education should be offered. It will do some good, and save lives. But condoms are much more effective. If you must choose one or the other, you should definitely go with condoms. In most of the world, the annual health care budget is less than $10 per year per person, so they do have to choose one or the other. Actually, they cannot afford either one, which is why people are still dying by the millions from AIDS. They also cannot afford modern mosquito nets treated with insecticide, which nearly eliminates malaria. The nets cost $5 per person per year, but several hundred million people who need them cannot afford them, and 1 to 3 million people per year die from the disease. (See: http://www.malaria.org/NYTIMES.HTM)
- Jed
