HIV Priority Shift?
A research team from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) recently published a paper in the journal Science calling for a “dramatic shift” in how HIV prevention is funded.
The BBC did a story here.
Specifically, they cited evidence that male circumcision is effective and underutilized and that a focus on reducing having multiple-concurrent partners should be a focus. The theory is that scientists know that people are most infectious right after getting HIV and if they have multiple partners within a few days or weeks, they are very likely to spread the disease which will then be quickly spread to the newly infected partners’ partner.
This is the essense of a “generalized epidemic,” and the theory helps explain why AIDS is not more common in the US, where people tend to be in a relationship with one person at a time.
(Note: I was raised Catholic and reading the previous paragraph made me wince a bit and my mind drift toward thoughts like “maybe if they were more moral they would have less AIDS.” But before anyone jumps to conclusions about sexual morality I want to note that I surmise infidelity is nevertheless more common in the U.S.)
My understanding is that these researchers are right about the science, but I disagree about their politics. They go about attacking people for wanting to spend a paltry amount of money on HIV/AIDS treatment and vertical programs that target this single disease. And their criticisms are right. But the right approach in politics and in a movement is to argue passionatly to build up your ideas, not to tear other’s down.
The leader of the study, Dr. Daniel Halperin, also seemed misinformed on what each candidate has pledged to do in terms of global health, parading one candidate’s plan to spend more money on TB and malaria too, when in fact his position was not clear and other candidates had used similar talking points.
