Glad to see Keith agreeing that HPA used to collect and publish figures and that PHE will carry on doing that. As PHE includes responsibility for screening and analysis for commissioning support units, they will be able to publish data that more reflects the situation on the ground. Something HPA struggled with as it could only have codified (paid for at PCT level, known as HRG but too many acronyms!) which in short means that data could only be brought down to 100 levels as there were 100 commissioning bodies. More in depth estimates came from something known as Townsend scores, which looked at socio economic groupings at council ward level and adjusted for deprivation etc.

In short, in The UK (non English health funding buys into the old HPA systems that PHE are reviewing and developing) we will at long last be able to advise governments of the state of the health of the nation in a way The Black Report (mid 70s) wanted but successive governments failed to act on. The new system , once up and running will also help us to address poverty based on reality rather than political stunts. Hence the refusal by LibDem ministers to approve Osborn's attempt to classify poverty last week.

For HIV? The people who use illness as a weapon to turn society against identifiable groups will still have lots of figures they can bandy around to create doubt but they will be more robust and harder to cast doubt on. Planning and delivering healthcare services in The UK will have some of the guesswork taken out of it. We have a single system here and the state pays for most care , with private providers having to provide data in a way many other countries don't. It is frustrating that we still have a degree of guesswork. In theory we should be able to care for the true picture out there purely because we can have the most confidence in our statistics. This is perhaps the one single section of the government health reforms that has cross party support.

Be careful when comparing countries for prevalence of a medical condition. The World Health Organisation puts a huge health warning on the subject of apples and pears. I was at a conference on that very subject only the other day. (I do not speak for or about sexual health but, in this case, cancer registries. There was a time I used to speak about bulk solids handling, but there is a difference in having credentials and advocating what those with credentials say.)

I advise anyone to look at the links provided in NHS Choices regarding HIV, prevalence and support. If you have hitherto formed your views on media and political / religious dogma you may find the reality alters your view. Even now, I read recently of a GP who is awaiting a fitness to practice hearing (GMC) and when it comes up it might make a news story. He told a gay person under his care that HIV was God's punishment. (Put a few allegedly clauses in that sentence. Although he doesn't deny saying it.