Thanks Keith, I can see that we agree on pretty much all of the issues, with a margin for disagreement that is normal and healthy.

For what it's worth - the statistics are not nearly so important as the ethical isses - my other point was about controlling the growth of HIV prevalence.

If HIV prevalence has grown 74% amongst gay men in 8 years but has grown 500% for straight people then straight people are doing very badly - almost 3 times as badly - as gay men at controlling the growth of HIV in their communities.

My assumption here is the use of the word "prevalence". If there are more than 5 times as many of something as there once was, is it not correct to say it is 5 times more prevalent? That's a genuine question, Keith, if I've used the wrong word - but you know what I mean - then let's just get the right word out please?

About prevalence, I just can't seem to find figures for people living with HIV by infection route. However, surely you accept the logic that if gay communities have a prevalence of 4%, the chances of a gay man contracting HIV - and therefore the growth in cases - is a lot higher than should be the chance of a straight person (did you say 0.0004% prevalence?) and therefore the growth in straight cases should be a lot lower - 10,000 times lower?.

But somehow straight HIV+ people have grown their UK-acquired rate of increase 3 times faster than have gay men in the last 8 years. With all the epidemiological and statistical cards stacked so strongly in their favour, that outome is shocking, isn't it? This is a critical observation in the discussion about needing to understand that HIV is a deadly issue for everyone who is not educated about the risks and prevention methods and/or chooses not to apply that knowledge - gay or straight.