On Tuesday, President Bush signed his promised relief bill for AIDS in Africa.
President Signs HIV/AIDS Act

This bill greatly increases the funding for combatting AIDS in Africa. The US spent only $154 million in 1999 fighting AIDS, by 2004 this number will be $3 billion. a 20 fold increase in only 5 years, by a Republican.

Does the President's signing of this bill change anyone's attitude towards him or his goals?

On the contrary. I see the timing of this money as strategic.

I'm sure those working to fight AIDS will welcome it though...

How so?

I think Moif sees it as a political strategy to help make him look good in the current polls & when the 2004 elections roll around

In that case, why not wait until Summer 2004? He stated this proposal in his State of the Union in January. It's not like he just sprung it on us.

I think Danya once made a comment that if GWB passed this, it would raise her assessment of him.

Good for him. I don't really think Bush is heartless and doesn't care about the people of Africa (or even Iraq for that matter,) but I think he's rather stupid and eaily manipulated by heartless neo-Conservatives like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfled and Paul Wolfowitz. This didn't change my view.

I applaud President Bush's demonstration of compassion and I believe it is sincere.

Praise Bush when he's right and condemn him when he's wrong.

He got it right. Good for him.

Here's what I said about this after his SOTU address on this site in a related thread.


Since I was right I see no reason to raise my assessment of him. BUT, had there not been strings attached (at least not the kind that risks lives) I would have been happy to finally have found one good reason to praise him.

Kudos to GWB. One in the plus column. Africa needs a lot of help, and if well spent, a little money can do a lot of good in Africa.

This just goes to show that Bush can be as kind as the next person while being accused as a warmonger

Kudos Bush Show the world you do care

Ahhhh yes....all praise our majestic and most noble leader, Dubya The Merciful. This is nothing more than a mere political move. He does not care about AIDS ravaged Africa nearly as much as he cares about improving his (and America's) image in the international community. I'm not saying he's totally heartless, I'm simply saying the reasons he gives are not genuine. Keeping and maintaining friendly relations with the other economic powers in the world (those who opposed the recent Iraq War) is far more important to Bush and his business-first associates than helping the average African cope with, or the possibility of contracting, HIV/AIDS.

I'm sorry but I can't accuse him of this. Keeping and maintaining friendships with the economic powers that opposed the war is not something he seems to give any importance to from what I see.

But I did notice his insistance that the rest of Europe follow along and contribute too.

Don't worry...he's very worried about it. He would never, ever say it on television or to the press, but it is, without a doubt, atop his list of priorities. He'll talk down to them in the public eye, but this is for show...to maintain his tough guy, take-no-crap cowboy image. Should the Euro surpass the dollar in value (a very real possibilty right now), he'll start whistling a different tune.

Its a start, I dont care about motive.
Too bad its laden with Christian abstinence programs that will funnel money off. Just shows ignorance once again of cultures and tribes, or traditional male tribal beliefs and basic sociology.
Denial is a powerful thing. Id rather have seen safe sex programs which would be much more effective, but anyhow, its fine to see it happen and the funds go there.

Amlord



Do you know where President Bush is today? (31st May) He is in Poland, where he has just given a speech clearly designed to force a wedge between 'Old' Europe and 'New' Europe.

Amongst the many topics in the speech he held in Krakow, he mentioned this 15 billion dollar AIDS research contribution before going on to call for Europe to make a similar commitment.

And of course there is his re election to consider. No one gives away 15 billion dollars without seriously considering how best to use that gift. I don't believe that this money makes George W Bush good man, for the simple reason that its not his money.

Abstinence is not the only measure allowed in the bill.

Bush signs bill to help fight AIDS



You make abstinence seem like some oppressive program.

Let's see:

Problem: Sexually Transmitted Disease (primarily)
Solution (one of many): avoid Sex with multiple partners.

When you were growing up, and your mother yelled at you for climbing a tree because she was worried you would break your head if you fell, what did your mother do?
A. Give you a helmet to wear when climbing the tree. (Minimize damage) or
B. Tell you to not climb the tree (Avoidance of Hazard)

My guess is B.

Moif:

Asking Europe to follow his actions is called : Leadership. He is encouraging others and leading by example.

By your reasoning, every decision is politically motivated (and indeed, it might be), but don't be so cynical about a good thing. This program is not going to be popular for traditional Republicans who are opposed to foreign aid without a clear payback. So it is not necessarily a smart political decision.

Gee, I guess it might never have occurred to African's that they could just abstain from sex. What a brilliant way to help them. Why do you need funds to promote it if you can just tell them that when they get their condoms?

This is a serious health issue that we should be above playing politics with...especially when we are dealing with people of an entirely different culture or religion. Let the Christian's and Right to Lifers preach to American's and let the African's get the supplies and medical help we promised without the moral lessons. That's just my opinion but I've always been critical of their attempts to make condoms into some kind of dirty erotic aid for sex rather than the common sense, life saving, birth and disease control it is. Whenever ones religious beliefs interfere with the lives or well being of others I think they should have the sense to keep their opinions to themselves.

hey, maybe we should also teach them masterbation, oh wait thats frowned upon to. i could see a bunch of african people watching instructional videos


but i like it, they can build more billboards showing african youth dressed like kids from the fiftys along with condom adds.

i dont see how this will end the aids spread overall but i doubt it could hurt.

anyways african culture has pretty much been shaped by western influence somehow for a few hundread years now, we are just continueing the task

Amlord,

Real quick... how many people are naturally driven to climb trees and how many are naturally driven to seek sexual partners? The "helmet" in the case of a child is far different from the condom issue facing both children and adults in Africa, and the rest of the world for that matter.

Regardless of condoms and abstinence, those working to combat AIDS also have to take into account those who might risk contracting the disease through the re-use of needles and other unsanitary practices. While I'll have to try and find it again, I remember not too long ago reading an article from a doctor who visited Africa. In the article the doctor recounted how they were specifically warned not to seek medical treatment from any of the public clinics.

Does this change my perception of Bush? Not in the least. Does anybody here really think it was Bush who sat down, crunched the numbers, looked into where the money would go and told his advisers that's the way it was going to be? Or do we all think of the way it likely happened: a couple advisers working through the night, explaining to Bush and his other advisers how it would look, what it would accomplish and ultimately convincing him to go along with it?

And I'll wait to see exactly where this money goes, how it is spent and what kind of impact it has on AIDS in Africa before I fall down in praise to even the bill.

Just to throw in some interesting information to the debate - this is an excerpt from the current issue of Discover magazine:



Perhaps the greatest portion of our money should be aimed at the medical infrastructure in Africa...

That makes perfect sense. They could bypass the sex issue completely and do a lot of good that way. And if Bush insists on doing something that will give him credit specifically for the AIDS epidemic he could for once simply put the needy ahead of big business and stop blocking their access to the generic drugs they prefer.

Have you tried it?

Abstinence is not only opressive, its IMPOSSIBLE for most who have not been totally religiously converted or socially educated to it by cutural demand, and even then, rebellion to it seeps out in the most perverse ways. Sociologic and biological drive do not truly allow it.

The sex urge in humans is as strong as our desire for food and water and something akin to rabbits. Humans may always be in heat, 365 days a year. Men appear to have a stronger drive, even in old age, for sexual conquest. Judgement is severely impaired in the sex drive. The force needed to impose abstinance upon humans equates to total brainwash and can usually only be accomplished through guilt ridden religious tactics.

Even safe sex is difficult to impress upon people. For example, in Latin cultures a man will usually deny using condoms and deep within the culture is a belief that the man MUST release in the female as a sign of his virility, and also for her its a completion. The Catholic church does not help this situation much by rejection of birth control. During the initial AIDS epidemic, when workers were educating, it was very hard to convince Latinos to use condoms for the very reason that it was a slight to the males. Also, in Latino culture (basically) a man does not turn down a woman who desires sex from him or he sees himself as less than a man, regardless of how much he loves his wife, lover, partner. These cutural beliefs led to many disease and female health problems in the Latin community. Additionally, Latin women see children as their personal treasure and cannot comprehend how white women can decide NOT to have them.

In tribal Africa, man spreds his seed to every and all available females, having children with as many as will bear, without thought as to their survival, assuring the tribes growth, lineage, and his virility as a man. Women consider children as wealth and proof of their womanhood and fertility, despite hardships, and often they have little choice in the matter.
African, Caribbean and African-American women are all too accustommed to their men having many children with 'other' women. This comes from a culture of survival. Men are often killed in wars, continuance of the race, geneology, etc.

In Anglo-Euopean culture, men visit strippers, prostitutes and lie to their wives, lovers by ommision. This is much more wide spread than anyone would like to imagine. Anglo people have affairs, often times with known friends of their partners or have one night flings. The ritual of fidelity being somewhat ingrained in our culture did not make sex with multiple partners or out of wedlock children non existant, only better hidden. Puritanism has created a monster of sexual perversity in Anglo culture. (ie: Only after Sept 11 did news, for a short time, replace porn as #1 driven sites on the Internet.) Our culture has a diversity of fetish unknown to other cultures such as BDSM and illegal pedophilia.

We have never been able to convince our own 'civilized' culture to adhere to abstinence, nor even maintain fidelity in our long ritual of monogamy and marriage and weve been trying for milenniums. How could we impose it on cultures that have no ritual of it, and in fact have ritual quite the contrary?

In essence, abstinence does not work with most humans. Realizing that fact, the money is better spent on things that DO work. Sex education, prevention through protection, and a well brought up idea, clean and sanitary medical facilities and blood transfusion tests.
In fact we need that here also, without the overblown, inconsistant, and hypocritical moral preachings. ( How many of our priests and preachers have been caught in lurid affairs and sexual child abuse?)

Artemise, the issue is pre-marital abstinance or at least trying to promote monogamy.



Since it is Africa that we are talking about, this is the section that is of interest. This is the behavior that we need to modify. "Spreading your seed to every and all available females" is EXACTLY the thing we need to educate against. In this day, this practice is not only dangerous, but deadly. Not only does it contribute to the AIDS (and other STD) epidemic, it promotes the population explosion which is keeping so many African nations in poverty and famine.

I did read another reference that stated almost an identical portayal. It added that many Africans marry their children off at an early age (sometimes as early as 8), but that marriage was not guarantee of monogamy.

Quark:


Probably a good idea, but if even 30% of the cases are spread through sex, then the problem will never go away. They need to update their medical infrastructure AND promote a sexual attitude that isn't going to kill them (or have them bring more children into a starving nation.) Actually, I don't think it is infrastructure so much as methodology.

I doubt they use any sort of "Universal Precautions" at those clinics to protect themselves or other patients. Training and availability of more supplies is essential.

The generic drug argument is a tired one. Drug companies have donated the required medecine to many African nations, but without taking them in the correct manner, those medecines don't work. Generic drugs would simply cut into the R&D budgets of drug companies, making new drugs LESS available. You need to understand how the drug industry works to comprehend why generic drugs will not solve anything.

I agree that the sexual habits are a problem. However, we are not the only ones that are contributing to the AIDS epidemic. I say we should donate to the medical treatment and help on the medical end of prevention. But I don't think we are culturally sensitive enough to single handedly solve their breeding habits. We will fail at that as we do any other mission we take on where we have no understanding or respect for tradition or culture.

Your generic drug excuse is not logical. I assume you think that because the drug companies donate x amount they should have to pay full price for any additional drugs? They are forced to rely on the charity of Pharmecutical companies? Don't make me laugh because at the same time you say wholesale compaqnies need to make a profit in order to develop new cures. Let them make their money elsewhere....this is not the area or the time to show Africa all the joys of capitilism.

And last you say that they fail to take medications in the correct manner so they don't work. If that's the case they are just as likely to screw up when they take wholesale drugs as generic, one has nothing to do with the other. Why make them throw away more money on useless drugs they don't know how to use?

Lastly, they prefer the generic drugs. Who made it our decision to allow it or not?

Amlord:


Patenting the process instead of the product is antithetical to true Capitalism. If the process-patent had been so strong a century ago, we would have only one automobile manufacturer in the world - whichever company first patented the internal combustion engine. Where's the competition in that? This is why AIDS activism in the Third World is partnered so closely with Patent Law activism.

What do you mean by this? Generic drugs taste better?

No, the argument is about money. Generic drugs are cheaper because the company producing the generic did not incur the cost of developing the drug. They are producing them using someone else's ideas. You must be in favor or boot legging software and music, since the copyrights on these materials only keeps the price artificially high.

Quark:

I am not sure how well you understand the process patent concept. In the pharmaceutical industry, it is often used to extend the patent on a drug by patenting the process by which the drug is produced. The formula is not patented, so anyone is free to copy it. There are many processes to produce a drug, however, and a process patent is hardly iron clad.

Amlord, you are correct. I was pathetically attempting to discuss the movement in Patent law which is about patenting the formulas and ingredients which make up drugs. "Process Patent" was the wrong term. I am referring to the idea of patenting organisms and elements. My apologies for my misstatement.

Processing the specific process is fine; patenting the original organism or ingredient is antithetical to competition, except in the most finite, "survival of the fittest" sense.

I believe Artemise expressed it exactly right.

In a perfect world abstinence would be the preferred way to avoid exposure to STD's and unwanted pregnancies.

But hey---this ain't a perfect world.

The zealots that decry the natural urge of humans to mingle with other humans cannot be regulated out of existence. I understand the point of the abstincence advocates, but it's a hopelessly impossible objective they've set for themselves.

When it rains you put up an umbrella. When you're going to engage in consensual relations with another person you should take similiar precautions.

That's not a perfect world, but it is the real world.

Which is easier and more effective?

Change african sexual habbits or Change african medical system?

Well, as my ex-fiance lived the majority of her 19 years in Senegal, I figure I know a slight bit about this subject.

I'd say that changing the medical infrastructure would be much easier then changing their sexual habbits. Can you imagine a woman who's never had anyone orally pleasure her One who originally nailed a fellow simply because she thought that is what was "expected" for taking her out for dinner and a movie (in addition to being really attracted to me )?

Less to say, even after my attempts to show and prove to her that I was interested not in just sex with her and as many as other women as possible (during her stay in the UK, she suggested I sleep with other women when I told her I missed her) she refused to believe me, eventually leaving me for someone who "Didn't put up pretenses, and admitted that's all he wanted."

Considering I'm an education major (social sciences and english language arts), you'd think I'd know a bit about education AND sociology/psycology, but did that help me in the least? NO. Her mind was set with what she was told was the truth from growing up, and in her eyes, nothing had proven that wrong.

How do you prove a particular sexuality wrong? Oh my... you have to prove something subjective is wrong... good luck.

On the other hand, how do you improve the African Medical system? Provide better access to quality education (I need not go into the lack of universities over there) and proper medical equipment (sterlity, anyone?) and supplies (drugs).

Hey - all you need for that is money! No convincing or brainwashing or re-education (of values and morals) required!

-Robert

Of course not. It means they prefer having drugs versus doing without or doing with less because of the cost.

I may be missing a piece of the puzzle though. Are you saying that the US patent for all of these drugs is still in effect and no one else in the world has legal access to any generic drugs for AIDS? Or are you saying there are generic drugs but not yet in America? Do other countries have to abide by the US patent laws for generic drugs if there are any available and sold freely elsewhere?

From your post I'm taking it that the only way for Africa to buy generic drugs is for us to lift the patent first or for them to buy them from the black market. Can you clarify for me?

In India, pharmaceuticals are a non-patentable thing, similar to the status of nuclear device here in the US.

I think they have the right idea - no one should be able to get rich off the health of the nation. People developed medicines before it made you independantly wealthy, and people would continue to do so if the US stopped the madness and ended medical patents.

Similar to how the best music in all of history was made before copyrights, perhaps we should stop making record copanies independantly wealthy from their newest one hit wonder.

-Robert

I was criticsized for thinking the worst of Bush on this measure when we were discussing this after the SOU address. I predicted:

1. It wouldn't be passed by Congress or he wouldn't fund it when the time came if it did.

2. If it did go through it's purpose would be to make sure the Pharmacutical companies came first.

3. His abstinence plans would hinder African's getting condoms or the money would only go to clinics that promoted abstinence only regardless of the different culture and religious beliefs in their country.

He never let's me down when I predict the worst from him. Especially if it concerns helping anyone sick, young, old, or poor.

1.

2.

3.

So your criticism boils down to :

1. The Congress is not completely backing the President's proposal. They are backing it, but not to the extent that the President wants. That is beyond the President's ability to control. He got the initiative rolling, it is up to the Congress to decide how much money to give such a program.

2. The President made the mistake (apparantly) of nominating someone who actually has knowledge in the field. Tobias no longer runs Eli Lilly, but Lilly does manufacture several drugs that treat AIDS or AIDS related conditions. I do not see this as a bad thing, having someone who is f amiliar with the issues. Eli Lilly is certainly not the only drug company with drugs in this field. Glaxo is the biggest player in this field and is the one most often targetted for price controls: Glaxo hit with new complaint on South Africa AIDS drugs

3.Let's be honest, abstinence is the only 100% effective way to stop the transmission of sexually transmitted AIDS. There is a genuine need for a culture change in sub-Saharan Africa, where these problems are rampant. Educating them about the dangers of promiscuous sex make sense, and not just from a religious standpoint. The best way to avoid injury is to refrain from dangerous conduct. I really can't fault the President for sticking to his principles here. There is funding for alternative methods, which shows open-mindedness.

Someone who has experience in the field of generating and protecting drug company profits, not experience in Africa. Africa really isn't a market unless foreign subsidies come into play. It is a horribly poor region of the world with extremely low per capita incomes. Because of this there is no legitimate market for buying drugs at retail prices unless a foreign government pays retail and sends the drugs there. But that money would be exponentially more effective if it was used to provide drugs for people who have HIV/AIDS.

How many people in Africa are infected with HIV/AIDS ?

GDP PER CAPITA



And how do we go about imposing a culture change. Can we send over enough satellite links and television sets to eradicate evening boredom. Can we develop Sub-Saharan reality tv to get everyone to tune in? abstinance is the most sure way to prevent the spread of HIV but is it really practiced anywhere?

Should this be implemented for political reasons or through the methods that the real experts in the field have determined are best suited for Africa.
I think (as I have posted in another thread) that the Africa-AIDs relief is developing into a type of political cover at home (Bush saved the Bush from AIDs!) and a handout to American pharmaceutical corporations.

Even with these flaws I do agree that something is better than nothing. However, whether this is simply another underfunded grand program (a la No Child Left Behind) with an ulterior motive driving the project (voucher system, or in this case patent protection), BUsh is using this program to further his political agenda.

The best way to stop an epidemic is to implement the best program for slowing its growth and treating its victims and their families. Getting on a soap box and preaching about culture change is not the best way. Suggesting altering human nature to stop the practice of intercourse in Africa is more than "mere" culture change.

Education about healthy sexual practices that will stop the spread of HIV will help. Helping provide more clinics and stocking those clinics with patent-free drugs from pharmaceutical companies that see the tremendous value in the good-will generated (with a little well-placed pressure from the president) will save lives and provide a world model that will show the benevolence and excellence of our country to the rest of the world.

Protecting our drug companies patents in the face of a human natural disaster will confirm the world's worst fears about the United States.

Treating AIDS patients without trying to treat the underlying problem of promiscuous sex will not be the answer. AIDS cannot be cured, its symptoms can be treated, but the person can still spread the disease. Giving someone enough medicine so they can go out and infect others in not the solution.

You may feel that condom use (and education) are the only answers. But condoms cost money, are annoying, and are, most importantly, not part of the culture. If you suggest that we are able to change the culture enough so that condom use will be acceptable, why not go a little further and teach the benefits of abstinence at the same time? I am not against condom use, but that cannot be the only answer, to the exclusion of all others.

This problem goes beyond just treating people. We must solve the root of the problem, not just give them medicine to treat the symptoms.

In what society is abstinence presently being practiced? I am all for education. I think absitnence should be taught as the most effective alternative, but I don't think earmarking a massive amount of the relief money for this purpose will be effective and neither do the experts in the field.

We need to get information to the people of Africa. This can be done through pamphlets and medical and social workers. But sending out these sources of information with the message that you need to cease intercourse altogether as the only message is like sending out a salesman into a field with only one unpopular product. That salesman needs some other products in his bag or the education project will be fatally flawed. For many people condoms are more comfortable than abstinence or disease.

There is no reason to muck this program up with the fundamentalist Christian agenda.

It is not about sex, it is about promiscuous sex. Having sex with multiple partners (in any society) is begging for disaster. Giving people condoms and then saying "NOW, you can go ahead and sleep around" is not the answer.

We need to teach monogamy (a foreign concept in some African nations). monogamy, regardless of married status will immediately stop the rampant spread of this disease.

Again, we need to treat the root cause, not just the symptoms.

I agree. If we are going to emphasize monogamy and other options than abstinence we will be dealing in the real world. However with the high infection rate, we also will need to be stressing the need to get partners tested before entering a monogomous sexual relationship. Education is key. The root cause is key. But there are also scores of millions of people that will die without drugs.

I do not agree that having sex with multiple partners in any society is a recipe for disaster. But it definitely is in the AIDs era.

But it sounds like we share more common ground on this subject than we do differences.

The true root cause here is not promiscuous sex, it is poverty.

1. Just as predicted. I'm sure the President is just heartbroken since he has only recently learned about AIDS and became it's cheerleader.

2. The nominee has no experience with AIDS...but tons of Pharmacutical business which as you know is a sore spot in this issue. Just as predicted though, they will have plenty of representation and power making sure their financial interests are the first to be met with the tax money.

3. Let's be honest...people have been having sex outside of marriage since the beginning of time. If you would like to go back to the days when it was simply done in secret and better hidden but carried out just the same how will that help AIDS in Africa? If clinics stop promoting condom use and try giving advice in it's place you have to expect that less people will have protection.

I think money isn't the answer but sex education is. These people are uneducated and they don't understand how they are getting this disease.

Teaching them will cut down the spread

Did anyone read what Quarkhead said about the medical infrastructure?

Just to requote a bit of the article that he posted earlier:



It's probable that the whole program is a bit offbase.

I think that in order to properly educate and medicate the people of Africa, they need a large amount of help with their infrastructure. What good does it do to provide medical supplies or educational materials if there is no effective way to implement it?

I think that George W. Bush's heart was probably in the right place on this one, but it just isn't a very well thought out plan. The money, most-likely, is just going to get absorbed into the system with little to no effect on the quality of life.

That would cost A LOT more than a mere $15 billion, Cyan.

We are willing to help out, but not to the extent of rebuilding the entire African medical infrastructure.

I understand that. I'm just pointing out the flaws in the program. Africa is a bigger problem than we can tackle alone, and providing $15 billion dollars is not going to make much difference.

Your original question for debate was:



My point is that I think that Bush means well with his plan, and certainly it is a worthy cause, but in the long run, I don't think it will be highly effective, because the problem is so large.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It's nice that Bush may mean well but results are what's important. I'm sure his support for Abstinence Only programs are based on good intentions but let's look at the result's right here in the USA and ask ourselves if this program is harmful or helpful where it really counts...in human lives.



Bush has been good at pushing those anti-viral drugs...so there must be something wrong with his safe sex campaigns. I'm sure if the cases had been declining he would be happy to take the credit. Is he or his supporters of this policy willing to take the blame since the opposite is true?

How can we support using this policy in Africa where they are suffering an epidemic?

So, after decades of safe sex campaigns succeeding, they are suddenly ineffective because GWB is President?

Come on, you can't really believe that...One data point out of a set does not indicate a trend.

My problem with the entire AIDS in Africa deal is that these people have, for the overwhelming majority, never been given AIDS tests. They are said to have AIDS based upon tests given to pregnant women (because they're in clinics for prenatal care) and pregnancy can cause false positives on the ELISA and Western Blot tests (which are the only tests that HAVE been given in Africa). Here is a small sample of Factors Known to Cause False Positive HIV Antibody Test Results:



The other "diagnoses" are based on the WHOs extremely loose "Bangui definition" for AIDS in African countries (see explanations of the definition in Is HIV really the cause of AIDS?, The Plague That Isn't, AIDS Hype In Africa? No HIV Test Required, Disease Defined Differently Than In U.S., AIDS in Africa?):



I think before we begin throwing money at AIDS-related treatment/programs, we should use ACCURATE measures to determine whether or not these "epidemic" numbers are anywhere NEAR correct.

There must be some kind of problem in Africa that is a lot like an "EPIDEMIC" because 23 million people have died of something there in recent years.

This is a problem that will have dramatic global proportions to it if we cannot find the compassion and will to try to deal with it.

Africa AIDS Death Count

For the first time since 1993 the number has risen. The drugs are better and, according to you, more accessible so it can't be that. I'm not saying it's because Bush is president...I'm saying it's because Abstinence Only DOES NOT WORK AND COSTS LIVES. I'm saying that to Bush and to all of the groups and individuals out there that pretend this policy will not kill people. But if you disagree you must have some other reason in mind that the numbers are suddenly rising. Please share it with me so I can see how silly it is that I've come to such a conclusion.

Less annoying than abstinence, which is a human impossibility in these circumnstances. And Much less costly than drugs to treat the disease when already underway.
Ideals are great, acceptance of reality much more practical. Often people with NOTHING have only that small time together as a relief from the rest of day to day misery. Not a chance in all the 'heavenly paradise' that Christian abstinence provides will we stop people from copulating. What we can do is make it safe.