3 ms·
Oddly enough, it turns out to be 836(!), which is definitely higher than I would have guessed. http://www.infoplease.com/us/census/data/nebraska/demographic.ht
by sib 10y ago
Oddly enough, it turns out to be 836(!), which is definitely higher than I would have guessed.
http://www.infoplease.com/us/census/data/nebraska/demographic.html http://www.infoplease.com/us/census/data/nebraska/demographi...
- semi-extrinsic 10y agoThose are presumably not all HIV positive.
- sokoloff 10y agoYes, but what personal or privacy-compromising information does "6 of this list of 836 people have HIV" convey? That that population has a higher-than-normal incidence of HIV as compared the US at large? That's potentially valuable aggregate health information, but I don't see how that compromises anyone's privacy. It would if you reported "6 of 836 were HIV+ on Tuesday. The next day, a new couple moved into town. On Wednesday, 7 of 838 were HIV+." I don't think the aggregated data that is contemplated here is released on nearly that frequency.