3 ms·
Your comment is quite misleading, I think. It reads as if you expose the article to make a wrong statement about incident rates. The article however however is
by callen43 5y ago
Your comment is quite misleading, I think.
It reads as if you expose the article to make a wrong statement about incident rates.
The article however however is purely right in this regard. It does not talk about comparison of incident rates at all. Its first sentence already clearly talks about numbers of HIV diagnoses.
If your comment would be like "Don't read the title in a wrong way. HIV is still much more common among lgb men than among heterosexual men and women. Reason is that lgb men are around 2.3% of all men compared to heterosexual mean and women who are 93.2% of the population" it might be helpful.
- cato_the_elder 5y ago> It reads as if you expose the article to make a wrong statement about incident rates. No? But you could read it as "exposing" the fact that it mentions incident rates only vaguely [1], and that the title is chosen strategically. (The article looks seems to be part of a public health campaign to encourage heterosexuals to test for HIV, and that's probably part of the reason.) There were a couple of comments which raised valid points about my rough estimate though. [1]: It only says "Gay and bisexual men are still more impacted by HIV relative to population size", but the question of by how much seems to be left an exercise for the reader.