For every 100,000 Washington D.C. residents over the age of 12, there are nearly 3,000 people living with HIV or AIDS. Or, put more frankly: A full three percent of Americans calling our nation’s capital home are infected. And that’s just what D.C’s HIV/AIDS Administration can count.
“Our rates are higher than West Africa,” said Shannon L. Hader, director of the District’s HIV/AIDS Administration, who once led the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s work in Zimbabwe. “They’re on par with Uganda and some parts of Kenya.”
“We have every mode of transmission” — men having sex with men, heterosexual and injected drug use — “going up, all on the rise, and we have to deal with them,” Hader said.
In addition to the epidemiology report, the city is also releasing a study on heterosexual behavior tomorrow. That report, funded by the CDC, was conducted by the George Washington University School of Health and Health Services.
Among its findings: Almost half of those who had connections to the parts of the city with the highest AIDS prevalence and poverty rates said they had overlapping sexual partners within the past 12 months, three in five said they were aware of their own HIV status, and three in 10 said they had used a condom the last time they had sex.
And which demographics are most at risk (emphasis ours)?
The District’s report found a 22 percent increase in HIV and AIDS cases from the 12,428 reported at the end of 2006, touching every race and sex across population and neighborhoods, with an epidemic level in all but one of the eight wards. Black men, with an infection rate of nearly 7 percent, carry the weight of the disease, according to the report, which also underscores that the District’s HIV and AIDS population is aging. Almost 1 in 10 residents between the ages of 40 and 49 has the virus.
The report notes that “this growing population will have significant implications on the District’s health care system” as residents face chronic medical problems associated with aging and fighting a disease that compromises the immune system.
Men having sex with men has remained the disease’s leading mode of transmission. Heterosexual transmission and injection drug use closely follow, the report says. Three percent of black women carry the virus, partly a result of the increase in heterosexual transmissions.
[…] More than 4 percent of blacks in the city are known to have HIV, along with almost 2 percent of Latinos and 1.4 percent of whites. More than three-quarters — 76 percent — of the HIV infected are black, 70 percent are men and 70 percent are age 40 and older.
Heterosexual sex was the principal mode of transmission for blacks with the disease, 33 percent. Men having sex with men was the chief mode of transmission for white residents, 78 percent; and Latinos, 49 percent. Black women represent more than a quarter of HIV cases in the District, and most, about 58 percent, were infected through heterosexual sex. About a quarter of black women were infected through drug use.
So, is there any good news?
More people are getting HIV diagnoses early, while they are still healthy, as a result of a policy of routine testing implemented by the city in mid-2006. Publicly supported HIV testing expanded by 70 percent.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Geoff
I just read a blurb on CNN yesterday that Bush said he was ‘still going to continue the fight against HIV/AIDS….in South Africa’. What a swell bas@#$!
n1spirit
I’m sure it can be argued there are any number of reasons for the increased transmissions. That said, as a gay male who is HIV-positive it never ceases to amaze me when I hear or see evidence that individuals today don’t consider this a real threat. It seems to me that once the drugs came along to help raise CD4 counts and lower virule loads, lengthening the lifetimes for those afflicted with a disease that was once seen as a death sentence — too many went back to throwing caution to the wind. Regardless of a person’s HIV status we should all do what we can to take precautions. People who are HIV-negative should take care to remain so and those of us who are HIV-positive should be diligent not to reinfect ourselves with a different strain. The war against HIV/AIDS has not been won, folks. We’ve made strides, yes — but we’re not yet over the finish line. And besides, the drugs I take for HIV are EXPENSIVE as all hell and do not come without their side affects. Another good reason to stay cautious.
scott
“70 percent are age 40 and older”
whoa. That’s a crazy stat. I thought the older generation would have a lower percentage rate because they lived though the AIDS crisis in the 80s.
Monica Roberts
<- waves long index finger, arches eyebrow and warns y’all…
dont’ EVEN try…
PearlsBeforeSwine
The WaPo article made the point that since only 60% of people know their HIV status the actual level of infection is much higher. That might also account for the higher incidence among older populations, assuming that there is a different rate of having been tested for different age ranges.
I have never heard the phrase “overlapping sexual partners” before, and I am not entirely sure what that means. My guess would be that it means “not serially monogamous”.
tavdy79
@scott: It’s not really that surprising – how many of the over-40s have been living with HIV since the height of the AIDS crisis? How many of them would already be dead without antiretrovirals?
If 70% of people with HIV are over 40, that’s a much better thing than if you had 70% under 30 – because that would mean the disease would be spreading faster in younger people than it actually is – and they’re the ones most likely to pass it on to subsequent generations.
Right now the only effective way of ending the AIDS epidemic is to restrict transmission, so even 30% in under-40s is way too high IMO; we should be aiming for 0%. It would be good to see the figures for under-30s (i.e. those who, like me, came of age just after the height of the AIDS crisis) over the last decade.
ousslande
Some how it must be Bush’s and the republicans fault. Geoff if he didn’t send money and prmosie to help in South Africa you would be blasting him for that too.
Maybe just keep it in your pants.
andy_d
@ousslande: Let’s see. Reagan’s administration bought into the lie that it was a “gay” disease as did Bush I. Neither did anything to advance safe practices, related to sex and IV drug use. In fact, they DISCOURAGED teaching them to the most at-risk populations. I remember marching by the white house in 1992 after the AIDS candlelight vigil chanting “Two more weeks. YOU’RE OUT!”
The republican-controlled congress told the residents of Washington, DC, that they may not enact the resident-mandated needle exchange program.
So, yeah, it IS the republicans’ fault.
alan brickman
I’ve heard this for years about Washington DC infection rates and have always laughed when Pres Bush showed he cared about black people “over there”…wonder if mainstream media will ever pick this up????
Ousslander
So aids funding did not increase under bush? The people who contracte hiv have no responsibiltyto educate themselves, if such infantiles than they should be made wards of the state. Under clinton the rates fell n did not rise?
People shoupd educate themselves n show a little responsibility for their own lives insteading numbly going along waiting for others to do the job.
Ousslander
Me english aint so good
n1spirit
@ousslande: Feel free to say what you wish but remember, you are the one who first brought up the Republican Party and their part in all of this mess. Nobody else on the board made comments placing such blame until you brought it up.
The truth be known Ronald Reagan is to blame for a good many AIDS related deaths as well as the increased transmission rates of HIV in this country. The cretin couldn’t get past his homophobic supposition that HIV/AIDS was a “gay disease” (a condition shared by Bush 1). While others were mourning Reagan’s death my own response was, “good riddance; let’s take out the trash and put him in the ground already.”
Had he been open to educating himself and getting past his morally superior attitude we might have seen some early education on the matter which would have helped equipped more “at risk” persons to take reasonable precautions to protect themselves from being infected. Yes, it is the responsibility of the individual to do what he or she can to protect against infection; I won’t argue the point but we still need to know the “facts” in order to equip ourselves to do this. I was negative, always practiced safer sex and got tested one to two times a year for HIV up until I met my partner of 6.5 years in late 1994. All of my HIV tests will support my status. HOWEVER, that relationship was 6.5 years of pure hell, both mentally and emotionally abusive and my partner misled me to believe he had tested negative for the virus. I bought his claims (stupid me!) As it turns out all those years of safer-sex would become a moot point when my so-called lover infected me with the virus. I left the lying s.o.b. in 2001 because of the abuse and THAT is when I discovered he had infected me. I don’t blame my status on Reagan, Bush (1) or the Republicans – I blame it on two people; my partner (and myself for buying into his lies without insisting on seeing firsthand actual and current test results before participating in unprotected sex with my then partner.
That said, I DO attribute many of the earlier transmissions of HIV to Ronald Reagan’s unwillingness to do more to (1) really understand the virus and how it is transmitted and (2) get the word out so that those he was “elected to serve and protect” could make informed decisions. He did neither and for that I hold Reagan (and many others who came after him, in the Republican party) responsible for the increased rates of transmission. Remember, you brought the asshole up first; not I.
(And no, your English “ain’t so good” but that’s really not the point so don’t worry about it.)
n1spirit
By the way, I turned 46 on the 12th of this month so yeah, I’m among the “over forties” crowd who is HIV-positive. I don’t keep my status a secret either when it comes to my personal life.
Ousslander
Your ex sounds vile and it is fucked up what he did to you. I hope your health is well. It was geoff who started with bush n company. Yes reagan could have made it a more important issue. They didn’t know much bout anthying then. Transmission wise n such, so there wasn’t much to educate with. Research could have been funded earlier. It was affecting a very small part of the population and not a popular or “sympathetic” part.
I believe they didn,t know how devistating it would be to the entire otherwise things would have been mobilized earlier. There is plenty of blame to go around, an entire government sat idle while we sickened and died. Again we were a valuable demographic to the majority of peopl
BobP
Ouss-
You’ve got it wrong. It wasn’t that Reagan “could” have done more, Reagan “should” have done more. He was the f’ing president!When his Secretary of Health, Magaret Heckler announced at a cabinet meeting that there was a disease that was killing gay men and drug addicts, he said “Well, what’s the problem”? And they all got a good laugh. The following morning Margaret Heckler was removed from her post and sent to Ireland as ambassador.
Don’t get gay men who lived through those days started. Seriously.
n1spirit
@BobP: Bob, you and I are in agreement on this. If you don’t mind I have quoted you over in my own blog (though I cannot find evidence in a PBS interview where Heckler admits to such a response from Reagan — of course, political figureheads often lie and the governments lack of response in the early years DOES speak for itself). Please let me know if you would prefer I not use the quote. The blog may be read (here). Thanks….. -Michael
n1spirit
@Ousslander: Yes, my ex is a vile man and I find it extremely hard to forgive him for all the years I endured his abuse (and more importantly, his lies about being negative) but I’ve tried to move on.
My health; well, that depends on what you consider to be “well.” I was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (cancer) in late 2006, resulting from my compromised immune system – but the cancer is now in remission. As with so many others who are infected with the virus I have to take meds to keep my CD4 count high and viral load low (which at present is undetectable so they are obviously working). The meds are expensive as all hell, costing $2000 a month. I suppose this is why I find it ludicrous that there are actually people out there who intentionally TRY to become infected (the “bug chasers), as if it’s some wonderful kind of club or something. (Not saying that is common but I’ve heard it happens.)
Inasmuch as George W. Bush is concerned I have nothing good to say about the man. I’m really glad he’s out of the White House [FINALLY!]. I don’t blame him for “everything” that is wrong today but he’s certainly (imo) done more harm than good. And no, I don’t blame the Republican Party for everything either. In every election I vote for the person, not the party. Even as a registered Democrat I had enough reservations about Barack that I ended up voting for McCain in the last election (but to tell the truth, am somewhat relieved that Barack won – I don’t know, go figure).
west129
The timing for releasing this news of a “horrendous epidemic” obviously demands immediate actions. We have to act now! What a golden opportunity for Obama, being a member of one of the groups most at risk, to fix the problem. He needs to declare DC a colony of his birth place Kenya/Africa first and than I have no problems if he throw billions at it.
However, I say let’s wait for Obama’s computerized medical data acquisition and free government health care plan to take care of this simple “behavioral” epidemic. Since we have been promised that his health care plan will be most efficient I suspect by then medication can be dispensed that will guarantee multiple, ultimate climaxes without a partner while it actually rots off the genitals and grows all orifices shut.
Of course, politicians know that education could solve this problem. We need to use the presidency in a most effective way, much like Clinton did in teaching us that oral sex is not sex.