> it's considered a settled issue that everyone is equally likely to get HIV. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Under every interpretation I can t

> it's considered a settled issue that everyone is equally likely to get HIV. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Under every interpretation I can think of, it is incorrect. In the first place, people vary in their CD4 and CCR5 (&c.) receptors, so they also vary in their susceptibility to HIV infection given exposure. My understanding is that some alleles confer such resistance to infection that carriers are considered naturally immune. As ever in immunology, that's not the entire story, but it certainly enough to falsify the view that "everyone is equally likely to get HIV" _even given exposure_. More importantly, people have different rates of exposure. Those rates depend on what sort of potential transmission events one faces, and the prevalence of infection among partners for potential transmission events. Both of those differ between groups of people. Hence, not everyone is equally likely to get HIV. That implies nothing, of course, about what we ought to _do_ about that.