Why is HIV/AIDS more prevalent in Africa than in America? This paper argues, based on statistical models, that it’s because of differences in how difficult it is to transmit HIV to a partner. All else being equal, an American who has sex with an HIV-positive American is much less likely to get infected than a Zambian who has sex with an HIV-positive Zambian. Therefore, the number of positive Zambians can increase at a much more rapid rate than the number of positive Americans.
There are a variety of reasons why. Poor nutrition weakens the typical African’s immune system and makes it harder for his/her body to prevent the virus from invading cells. The STDs of Africans are less likely to be treated, leaving them more likely to (grossness alert) have lesions or other unnatural openings down south. And there are a variety of other illnesses in southern Africa that impact the urogenital system — I’ve long suspected bilharzia is an HIV risk factor.
The strange thing about HIV is that it’s actually pretty hard to get if you’re healthy and having traditional heterosexual sex. Heterosexual transmission is rare: “Per-act infectivity in two studies was found to be low: 0.0005 and 0.0009 for male-to-female transmission, and 0.0003 and 0.0001 for female-to-male transmission.” In other words, it takes between 1,100 and 2,000 incidents of a healthy woman having unprotected sex with an HIV-positive man for one woman to be infected. The reverse path is even more rare: on average, it takes between 3,300 and 10,000 unprotected sex acts with an HIV-positive woman for a healthy man to be infected. But with STDs in the picture, those per-act infection rates skyrocket.
(Strangely, even with the gold standard of sexual transmission — receiving unprotected anal sex — it’s pretty hard to get HIV. “One recent study estimated the per-act risk of HIV infection from [unprotected receptive anal intercourse] with a partner who is HIV-positive at 0.82% (82 in 10,000).” Different studies produce different numbers, but they’re all in the same general ballpark.)
Anyway, all this is to say that if you can explain the geographic infection gap away just by looking at transmission rates, it’s awfully strong evidence that more focus should be put on remedies that can cut that transmission rate: better nutrition, aggressive STD treatments, etc. The good news is that a lot of that work is relatively cheap — cheaper than even the rapidly dropping cost of protease inhibitors and other anti-AIDS drugs.
More controversially, putting the blame on transmission rates also argues that changing sexual behavior isn’t nearly as useful as you might imagine. See page 55 of the paper, which compares American HIV infection rates (about 0.2 percent of adults) to sub-Saharan African rates (about 12.7 percent). If the U.S. suddenly had the same transmission rate as Africa — that is, if getting infected were as medically easy in America as it is in Africa — the U.S. infection rate would rocket up to 12.2 percent. But if U.S. patterns of sexual behavior were suddenly the same as Africa’s — which generally means more extramarital sex and less condom use, but less premarital sex — the American infection rate would barely budge. Or look at page 60, which models what African infection rates would do if you were able to reduce the ease of transmission by 20 percent versus what would happen if you could reduce all sexual activity by 20 percent. Transmission means more.
An enormous amount of the funding that goes into fighting AIDS in Africa is about behavioral change — primarily towards encouraging condom use and abstinence. Behavioral change is really, really hard to do — even just moving the needle on condom use a few percentage points. But this research would seem to indicate that money might be better put toward treating gonorrhea and chlamydia.
(Apologies to those of you who come to crabwalk.com just for the fart jokes.)