The Solution to Aids is... More Sex?
Admittedly, I haven't gone to the trouble of doing the complete analysis myself, but on the surface, this column does a remarkably good job of claiming that AIDS would spread less if sexual conservatives became less sexually conservative. One wonders what Pat Buchanan and the like would say to this.
posted by Gideon Humphrey at 10:35 AM
2 Comments:
The article is so convincing, that it's entertaining.
"But suppose all once-a-year revelers could be transformed into twice-a-year revelers. Then, on any given night, you'd run into twice as many of them. Those two promiscuous bar patrons would be outnumbered by four of their more cautious rivals. Your odds of a relatively safe match just went up from 50-50 to four out of six."
Lets assume you have aids. Your odds of potentially infecting someone just went up from 50-50 to four out of six.
True.
Still, one would hope that the researcher considered that, and without bothering to do the math myself, it seems at least plausible to me that the effect mentioned in the article would overwhelm the one you just mentioned. It is also well worth considering what it says if you click the link in the article titled Professor Kremer's Research:
"Thus there are two different "optimal" levels of sexual activity for Martin, depending on what one means by "optimal." If we want to minimize the prevalence of AIDS, then there is a certain optimal increase in Martin's sexual-activity level. If, on the other hand, we want to maximize the difference between the benefits of sex and the costs of AIDS, then there is a different (and larger) optimal increase in Martin's activity level. Of these two notions of "optimal," economists will have a strong preference for the latter.
(It should also be noted that there is a difference between minimizing the long-run prevalence of AIDS and minimizing the short-run rate of infection; this offers yet a third possible interpretation of the word "optimal.")"
Post a Comment
<< Home