liz@AI.MIT.EDU (Liz A. Highleyman) (10/14/90)
I used to agree with the previous poster in being upset about the prevalence of the notion of high risk groups. It is the orthodoxy within the AIDS activist movement that there are no high risk groups, only high risk behaviors. Lately, though I have come to re-evaluate this. Since the car analogy has popped up here recently, I will continue it: Someone who drives frequently, and who drives on congested high- ways at high speeds is at more risk of an automobile fatality that someone who on occasion drives at 30mph through the suburbs. This does not mean, of course, that the latter cannot be killed in a car accident, nor that s/he should not take precautions. But it seems clear that the former person is at higher risk. Part of the reason for my change in attitude is the fact that as people (the dreaded `general population') learn more about AIDS, contradictory info and all, they are becoming more skeptical. When people are told that a married midwest heterosexual suburban couple is just as much at risk and should take equal precautions to an IV drug user in New York city, they do not believe it, and this impacts their willingness to believe anything else AIDS educators may tell them. Perhaps when trying to educate the larger public, we need to think about using different methods and a different vocabulary than we did/do to educate specific groups like gay men, or inner city women. It is easier, of course, to aim one blanket campaign that many specific targeted ones. And it makes sense that with limited resources we would aim that campaign with the most at-risk people in mind. But I am starting to think that doing so is causing AIDS educators to lose credibility. What do others think? -Liz
rob@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US (Rob Boldbear) (10/15/90)
In article <40106@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> liz@AI.MIT.EDU (Liz A. Highleyman) writes: >I used to agree with the previous poster in being upset about the >prevalence of the notion of high risk groups. It is the orthodoxy >within the AIDS activist movement that there are no high risk >groups, only high risk behaviors. Lately, though I have come to >re-evaluate this. > >Since the car analogy has popped up here recently, I will continue >it: > > Someone who drives frequently, and who drives on congested high- > ways at high speeds is at more risk of an automobile fatality > that someone who on occasion drives at 30mph through the suburbs. > This does not mean, of course, that the latter cannot be killed > in a car accident, nor that s/he should not take precautions. > But it seems clear that the former person is at higher risk. The analogy falls a little flat. I assume the groups Liz would be using here would be "frequent freeway commuters" and "occasional local drivers". Those groups are ad hoc based on the behavior that's risky. That's fine. To bring this back to risky behavior, you'd have to redefine the high risk groups in terms of the risky behavior, e.g. "unsterilized needle sharers", "unprotected sex participants." However ... I think there is *some* use to talking about high risk groups in certain circumstances. A gay man living in a large city is more likely to get HIV infected than a woman living in a rural town who performs the same sexual acts with the same amount of risk as the gay man, simply because the gay man's partners are more likely to be infected than the woman's. The concept of high risk groups is useful in a practical way in allocating limited resources for combatting the epidemic. -- Rob Bernardo Mt. Diablo Software Solutions _ / email: rob@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US phone: (415) 827-4301 <_/>< S0/8 b-/+ g- l y- z- n o a-- u+ v-- j- P6 B3 f+ t- dvcv sv w- m+ r+ p / "There is no right 'not to be offended'." -Bob Culmer