Keith is nearly being a clever clogs, but not quite.

200/60,000,000 is not a higher proportion than 1200/60,250,000

So the proportion is still increasing.

But it was just a frivolous diversion anyway.

The Criteria Keith sets out in his position is to do with the proportion of new diagnoses per demographic.

It is also to do with the rate of increase of the growth in numbers of HIV infections in each demographic.

And in Heteros that has been growing at a linear rate for under ten years, and at a contrasting very low rate for the previous twenty odd years.

In all, the rate of growth can be seen to increase dramatically less than a decade ago.

Overall, the rate of growth has changed, resulting in a dog leg shaped graph

Any golfer knows that a dog leg is not linear, and is certanly very unpredictable.

The rate of Growth could change again.



As for the transmisssion efficiency stats, Keith has to admit that they are not as clear as he makes out.

33.8 times riskier does not make sense as a base rate, only as a subsequent rate once other factors have been included.

otherwise the 1 in 10 versus 1 in 3 figures would be unattainable.

If you took 33.8 as your base risk factor, it would increase with the inclusion other risk factors.

So with the addition of the risk associated with being more likely to encounter a HIV positive partner, the factor of 33.8 would increase several fold.

1 in 10 versus 1 in 3 indicates a factor of just over 3.

If you take 1 in 10 as your base factor, then with the addition of other factors you could arrive at an overall factor of 33.8

Someone else can do the actual donkey work.

It is also possible that there is a mistake on the page that these figures come from.