By my estimation, you should never underestimate the value of questionable estimates
Thomas Keister
November 23, 2007
With the holiday season now officially upon us, it becomes easier to remember the infinite numbers of ways human suffering exists here on this planet mudball, especially given the infinite numbers of crusades, charity drives, fundraisers, and the related promotion thereof ready and waiting to wash over us as we try to maneuver through Black Friday traffic. This column isn't so much about the proliferation of of tax-deductible goodwill around this time of year, but how easy it can be for some of the causes to fall victim to its own self-importance.
As reported in the New York Times on Wednesday, Unaids, the United Nations' AIDS agency, has come under fire in light of inflated numbers of HIV infections around the world. While Unaids battles the allegations, a revision of those numbers was released Monday, putting the number at 33.2 million, instead of the 39.5 million originally reported. Dr. Paul De Lay, Unaids director of monitoring and policy, has waded knee-deep into the fray, calling it "impossible to cook the data," that intentionally jacking up the figures was "absurd," and blaming a budget issue.
Amazingly enough, there did seem to be enough money to conduct more accurate surveys in India and Africa, which highlighted the difference in the numbers. Here's where the problems start, at face value, with the numbers. The new figures are based on multiple studies in a half-dozen, presumably high-risk countries, using a new assumption that someone with HIV will live an average of eleven years with no treatment, up from nine years in the previous formula. The nine year estimate was culled from a study in the 1990s in southern Uganda.
Let's see here, outdated and insignificant information used to create an arbitrary estimate of life span, combined with questionably accurate research data, leads to a disputed, then revised number. Why, exactly, does the United Nations think they can help, given the half-cocked basis of their statement of their understanding (?) of the size of the problem in the first place?
The single biggest problem the UN faces is the problem of tracking the problem itself. According to Times writer Donald McNeil's story, it is virtually impossible to measure new HIV infections in poor countries, due to lack of testing and the difficulty in detecting symptoms. Not that the global AIDS epidemic is unworthy of our attention, at any time of the year, but clearly a better standard needs to be developed, lest more embarrassment down the road for those trying to turn the tide in the fight. Of course, by this point, that may be the biggest overestimation of them all.
As reported in the New York Times on Wednesday, Unaids, the United Nations' AIDS agency, has come under fire in light of inflated numbers of HIV infections around the world. While Unaids battles the allegations, a revision of those numbers was released Monday, putting the number at 33.2 million, instead of the 39.5 million originally reported. Dr. Paul De Lay, Unaids director of monitoring and policy, has waded knee-deep into the fray, calling it "impossible to cook the data," that intentionally jacking up the figures was "absurd," and blaming a budget issue.
Amazingly enough, there did seem to be enough money to conduct more accurate surveys in India and Africa, which highlighted the difference in the numbers. Here's where the problems start, at face value, with the numbers. The new figures are based on multiple studies in a half-dozen, presumably high-risk countries, using a new assumption that someone with HIV will live an average of eleven years with no treatment, up from nine years in the previous formula. The nine year estimate was culled from a study in the 1990s in southern Uganda.
Let's see here, outdated and insignificant information used to create an arbitrary estimate of life span, combined with questionably accurate research data, leads to a disputed, then revised number. Why, exactly, does the United Nations think they can help, given the half-cocked basis of their statement of their understanding (?) of the size of the problem in the first place?
The single biggest problem the UN faces is the problem of tracking the problem itself. According to Times writer Donald McNeil's story, it is virtually impossible to measure new HIV infections in poor countries, due to lack of testing and the difficulty in detecting symptoms. Not that the global AIDS epidemic is unworthy of our attention, at any time of the year, but clearly a better standard needs to be developed, lest more embarrassment down the road for those trying to turn the tide in the fight. Of course, by this point, that may be the biggest overestimation of them all.
Print
Email
