I'm gonna enjoy writing this one.

There's Washington Post article on the impact of HIV infection on the Black community. Blacks hardest hit, etc.

U.S. Survey Indicates Blacks Hardest Hit by HIV Infection
In 2001, Rate for Those Ages 18 to 59 Is 13 Times That of Whites

This sort of article always disturbs me.

For some reason though, I decided to examine this article the same way I do articles on politics and economics.

They tested a proper-sized sample, I think.

In the 2001 survey, out of about 5,500 people examined, 32 were HIV-positive. Of that group, 23 were African American. The overall prevalence of HIV was 0.43 percent, up slightly from 0.33 percent a decade earlier.

On the one hand, that's a disturbingly high rate for a deadly illness, regardless of the selection criteria used to decide who to ask. On the other hand, 32 infections out of 5,500 people means it's not too late for you to be safe.

Also, "18 to 59" is a pretty broad swath. In this age of focus group marketing I can't think of a demographic defined that broadly. There's a a finer tuned result in the middle of the article.

The prevalence of HIV infection in blacks ages 18 to 59 in 1991 was 1.1 percent, about five times higher than what was found in whites. In 2001, it was 2.14 percent, and the gap had increased to 13 times that seen in whites. The hardest-hit group was black men ages 40 to 49, 3.6 percent of whom were infected with HIV when contacted through the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Although the later survey showed a marked increase in HIV prevalence in blacks overall, it found no change over 10 years in the 18-to-39 age group. That finding is at odds with numerous other studies showing the AIDS epidemic growing with unusual speed in young black homosexuals (many of whom do not consider themselves to be gay), and in women who are their sex partners or the sex partners of intravenous drug users.

This is interesting.

The whole "on the downlow" thing has been apocryphal from the beginning.

At this point I'm interested enough to look up the original report (okay, the abstract...I'm good, but there's going to be specialized terminology that I can't follow). This is where it gets really interesting, as indicated by the added emphases:

Results:  The age adjusted prevalence of HIV infection in NHANES III was 0.33% (95% CI, 0.22 to 0.52) as compared with a prevalence of 0.43% (95% CI 0.25 to 0.72) in 1999 to 2002. Prevalence was significantly higher among non-Hispanic blacks in the current survey going from 1.10% (95% CI 0.68 to 1.79) to 2.14% (95% CI 1.46 to 3.11). An analysis of risk factors in the current survey demonstrated that only intravenous drug use and herpes simplex-2 antibody were significant risks for infection among non-Hispanic blacks. CD4+ T lymphocyte testing of the HIV positives and age matched controls, showed that 32% of infected individuals had CD4+ cell counts 3, but only 20% of these individuals reported ART use in the last 30 days; 19 infected individuals called for their test results, with 8 reporting that they were not previously aware of their HIV result. Of the 11 individuals who knew of their HIV status, 10 reported current HIV medication.

Conclusions:  HIV seroprevalence in the household population did not significantly change in the 10 years between the 2 surveys, but did significantly increase in the non-Hispanic black population. In the total population, 35% of HIV-infected individuals reported taking ART drugs compared with 18% in the non-Hispanic black population. Since 91% of those who knew their HIV status were being treated, awareness of HIV status continues to be an important component of HIV/AIDS prevention. Data from this representative sample of the U.S. household population demonstrates that racial and ethnic disparities in HIV infection are increasing on national level but since most individuals who knew about their infection were receiving treatment, an increased awareness and availability of HIV testing should help reduce these racial and ethnic disparities.  

The points:

1. An analysis of risk factors in the current survey demonstrated that only intravenous drug use and herpes simplex-2 antibody were significant risks for infection among non-Hispanic blacks.
   That ought to put a knife in the heart of the "downlow" saga. And it's totally in keeping with the greatest increase being in the 40 to 49 year old demographic.
   
   
2. 19 infected individuals called for their test results, with 8 reporting that they were not previously aware of their HIV result
   GET YOUR SHIT TESTED.
   
   
3. Since most individuals who knew about their infection were receiving treatment, an increased awareness and availability of HIV testing should help reduce these racial and ethnic disparities.
   If you're young and not an IV drug user, you know what to do to stay healthy.
   

Yeah, we got an epidemic, but it can be mastered.