TIME article... UGH!

[Minarai]

I was flipping through the newest issue of TIME magazine a few minutes ago, and I ran across an article about the new AIDS vaccine. (Yes, I know vaxes are out of the scope of this forum, but the vax is not the reason I brought this up.)
In the side panels, they had a quip that said that circ was 60% effective against HIV! Sheesh, when will people LEARN?!?

(I can't find an online version of the article that contains the quip; sorry.)

[tennisdude23]

Originally Posted by Minarai

I was flipping through the newest issue of TIME magazine a few minutes ago, and I ran across an article about the new AIDS vaccine. (Yes, I know vaxes are out of the scope of this forum, but the vax is not the reason I brought this up.)
In the side panels, they had a quip that said that circ was 60% effective against HIV! Sheesh, when will people LEARN?!?

(I can't find an online version of the article that contains the quip; sorry.)

This is a perfect example of how statistics are misused or misquoted all the time. Even if you believe the dubious figure of 60%, this figure only applies to female - male transmission in third world African countries, hard hit by HIV. Once condoms are used and behavior is modified, the 60% statistic becomes a mute point, even in Africa.

[laohaire]

A quip, as in a joke? Was it a cartoon or something? Either way it seems misleading since people will probably take a quip seriously as well unless it very clearly bashes the stat.

[Minarai]

Originally Posted by laohaire

A quip, as in a joke? Was it a cartoon or something? Either way it seems misleading since people will probably take a quip seriously as well unless it very clearly bashes the stat.

I meant a little blurb alongside the main body of text.

[Quirky]

quote + blip = quip!

[Ron_Low]

Originally Posted by tennisdude23

Even if you believe the dubious figure of 60%, this figure only applies to female - male transmission in third world African countries, hard hit by HIV.

Indeed, the same researchers found male to female transmission is 50% more likely of the male is cut.

And the "vaccine" effect only seems to work when certain pro-circs are running the show.

But even so, it's only shown as an effect in the short term, as all 3 large studies were cut short of their agreed-to protocols (like betting on best 2 out of three, but demanding payment after the first toss goes your way). The cut men were necessarily abstinent (healing) for a significant chunk of the study duration.