NationStates Jolt Archive

A few things about HIV that the genii here don't seem to know.

HIV is a virus that causes HIV disease and can cause AIDS, which is a T-cell count of under 200.

Condoms only prevent HIV 86% of the time, NOT 99.9%.
According to a 2006 report by the National Institutes of Health, correct and consistent use of latex condoms:

* reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85% relative to risk when unprotected.

I have to make a new thread because no one will read this in the circumcision thread. So to add justification, is anyone HIV positive or have a family member or close friend who is HIV-positive?

I have a friend who is HIV positive, his wife is as well, but they both had it before they met.

He goes around to the local schools and talks to the students about it. :)

I think you'll find that the plural is geniuses.

The plural of Genius is not Genii.


:eek:


Properly used they're nearly 100% effective. Though honestly what kind of moron can't figure out a condom I don't know.

I think you'll find that the plural is geniuses.

The plural of Genius is not Genii.

Learn English, both of you. (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=genius)

The plural of Genius is not Genii.


:eek:


Properly used they're nearly 100% effective. Though honestly what kind of moron can't figure out a condom I don't know.

According to a 2006 report by the National Institutes of Health,[16] correct and consistent use of latex condoms:

* reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85% relative to risk when unprotected.

kthx

I say Genii. Cacti...Octopi...

A few things about HIV that the genii here don't seem to know.

The incorrect plural of genius while insulting people's intelligence was a nice touch.

Properly used they're nearly 100% effective. Though honestly what kind of moron can't figure out a condom I don't know.

86% is not nearly 100%

Learn English, both of you. (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=genius)

Learn to read K? thnx.

plural usually genii : SPIRIT, JINNI So unless you mean Genie, the plural is not genii. When referring the corporeal sorts it's Geniuses.

Learn English, both of you. (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=genius)

So the plural of Penis is Penii? ~Pyo ^-^"

Learn to read K? thnx.

plural usually genii : SPIRIT, JINNI So unless you mean Genie, the plural is not genii. When referring the corporeal sorts it's Geniuses.

Main Entry: ge·nius
Pronunciation: 'jEn-y&s, 'jE-nE-&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural ge·nius·es or ge·nii /-nE-"I/

Learn English, both of you. (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=genius)

Learn to read your own links.
1 a plural genii : an attendant spirit of a person or place b plural usually genii : a person who influences another for good or bad
4 plural usually genii : SPIRIT, JINNI

Genii is the plural of the Latin word genius, which was an Ancient Roman guiding spirit of a person or place.

So the plural of Penis is Penii? ~Pyo ^-^"

-us is pluralized as -i. -is is not.

The etymology of genius and genie are intertwined.

BACK TO HIV!

-us is pluralized as -i. -is is not.

Welcome to English, where the rules of grammar are more like suggested guidelines.

The etymology of genius and genie are intertwined.

BACK TO HIV!

yes, doesn't it annoy you that all of the "real sex ed" people you talk to think that condoms are 99.999999999% effective at anything? it annoys me, I mean that's just not right.....if you are going to educate, you should probably tell the freaking truth? huh?

Learn to read your own links.

Genii is the plural of the Latin word genius, which was an Ancient Roman guiding spirit of a person or place.

You should learn to read them, too. "Usually" != always - "genii" can be used for both. The Latin plural of words that end with "-ius" is "-ii", and since both the spirit and the savant are termed by the same Latin word, the same plural can be used for both.

So the plural of Penis is Penii? ~Pyo ^-^"

No, the plural is either "penises" or "penes". For the plural to be "-ii" the word would have to be "penius".

-us is pluralized as -i. -is is not.

Not always. English plays fast and loose with Latin plurals. Also Octopus is most often Octopuses, not Octopi, though that is a rarely used version of the word.

No, the plural is either "penises" or "penes". For the plural to be "-ii" the word would have to be "penius".

I don't think I could have been joking more with...

~Pyo ^-^"

Penii sounds better :p

Not always. English plays fast and loose with Latin plurals. Also Octopus is most often Octopuses, not Octopi, though that is a rarely used version of the word.

I tihnk it depends if you're reffering to more than one octopus of the same species, or more than one octopus of different species.

You should learn to read them, too. "Usually" != always - "genii" can be used for both. The Latin plural of words that end with "-ius" is "-ii", and since both the spirit and the savant are termed by the same Latin word, the same plural can be used for both.

Depends on your source:

gen·ius (jēn'yəs) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. gen·ius·es

1.
1. Extraordinary intellectual and creative power.
2. A person of extraordinary intellect and talent: "One is not born a genius, one becomes a genius" (Simone de Beauvoir).
3. A person who has an exceptionally high intelligence quotient, typically above 140.
4. A strong natural talent, aptitude, or inclination: has a genius for choosing the right words.
5. One who has such a talent or inclination: a genius at diplomacy.
2.
1. A strong natural talent, aptitude, or inclination: has a genius for choosing the right words.
2. One who has such a talent or inclination: a genius at diplomacy.
3. The prevailing spirit or distinctive character, as of a place, a person, or an era: the genius of Elizabethan England.
4. pl. ge·ni·i (jē'nē-ī') Roman Mythology A tutelary deity or guardian spirit of a person or place.
5. A person who has great influence over another.
6. A jinni in Muslim mythology.

Not always. English plays fast and loose with Latin plurals. Also Octopus is most often Octopuses, not Octopi, though that is a rarely used version of the word.

And Octopus comes from Greek, not Latin.

yes, doesn't it annoy you that all of the "real sex ed" people you talk to think that condoms are 99.999999999% effective at anything? it annoys me, I mean that's just not right.....if you are going to educate, you should probably tell the freaking truth? huh?

Don't they usually qualify that with "when used correctly"?

(I don't know; just a vague memory)

-us is pluralized as -i. -is is not.

Nope. In Latin, if the word ending in "-us" is a fourth-declension masculine noun, it would be pluralised by the elongation of the vowel "u". If the word ending in "-us" is of the third declension, it gets trickier with such formations as "genus" -> "genera", "opus -> opera".

You mentioned "octopi". That is pseudo-Latin that has become accepted (although not advised) in English. The proper Latin plural is "octopodes". Same thing with "rhinoceri", which should be "rhinocerotes".

Don't they usually qualify that with "when used correctly"?

(I don't know; just a vague memory)

"when used perfectly"

the "typical use" percentage of both HIV protection and pregnancy protection sits at around 85%

which I think when you are talking to high school kids, you should probably use the "typical use" numbers.....

Penii sounds better :p

It sounds uneducated and stupid.

If the word ending in "-us" is of the third declension, it gets trickier with such formations as "genus" -> "genera", "opus -> opera".

The third declension has been the bane of my existance since I started taking Latin. :mad:

It sounds uneducated and stupid.

*adjusts glasses*

I'm afraid that stick is going to have to be removed before any more of your posts are affected.

"when used perfectly"

the "typical use" percentage of both HIV protection and pregnancy protection sits at around 85%


Not according to studies. Those put pregnancy protection at 98%.

Not always. English plays fast and loose with Latin plurals. Also Octopus is most often Octopuses, not Octopi, though that is a rarely used version of the word.

There is also the strong opinion (which I share) that the correct plural form of octopus is "octopodes," though this is rarely seen in common usage.

http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutgrammar/plurals?view=uk

Depends on your source.

Depends on your knowledge of etymology and Latin. That's why Latin plurals, while "nice-sounding" to some, should be avoided in favour of English plurals.

Only on online Fora (note correct plural form :p ) can an HIV discussion go off onto debates about Latin morphology. :D

Depends on your knowledge of etymology and Latin. That's why Latin plurals, while "nice-sounding" to some, should be avoided in favour of English plurals.

I think it's cute you believe the etymology has anything to do with the bastardization English has done to words.

Wow. This is one hell of a threadjack.

Could I get a source for the statistic in the OP?

I have to make a new thread because no one will read this in the circumcision thread. So to add justification, is anyone HIV positive or have a family member or close friend who is HIV-positive?

I'm not HIV-positive, but I know several people who are and who are no more. Seeing the new drug regiments work is amazing compared to what one saw in the first half of the 90s.

I think it's cute you believe the etymology has anything to do with the bastardization English has done to words.

Hence why I said Anglophones should avoid Latin altogether.

And Octopus comes from Greek, not Latin.

And we all know that Greek sex requires more protection than standard old missionary Latin sex does, which then brings us to wondering if Octopi skin might be better than sheep intestine for making condoms for Greeks? Hmmmm…

*goes out to catch and skin an octopi*

Not according to studies. Those put pregnancy protection at 98%.

Of 100 women whose partners use condoms, about 15 will become pregnant during the first year of typical use.

Planned Parenthood (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control/condom.htm)

reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85% relative to risk when unprotected.

reduces the risk of gonorrhea for men by approximately 71% relative to risk when unprotected

University of Washington study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in June 2006 reports that proper condom use decreases the risk of transmission for human papilloma virus by approximately 70%.



Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom)

wow, none of that sounds like 98%

Welcome to English, where the rules of grammar are more like suggested guidelines.

Thank you.

Of 100 women whose partners use condoms, about 15 will become pregnant during the first year of typical use.

Planned Parenthood (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control/condom.htm)

reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85% relative to risk when unprotected.

reduces the risk of gonorrhea for men by approximately 71% relative to risk when unprotected

University of Washington study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in June 2006 reports that proper condom use decreases the risk of transmission for human papilloma virus by approximately 70%.



Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom)

wow, none of that sounds like 98%

Yeah, when your using a year long study as opposed to a one use study, the numbers change. the 98% is based on the 2% risk of a condom breaking. Extend that over a year, and add in times the couple "forgot", the numbers go down.

This has been brought up before.

So, your point is? It's still better to use it than not to use it, and MUCH better.

So, your point is? It's still better to use it than not to use it, and MUCH better.

I agree. It just annoys me when people go around saying "it's like 99.999999999% effective" when it's not.

Yeah, when your using a year long study as opposed to a one use study, the numbers change. the 98% is based on the 2% risk of a condom breaking. Extend that over a year, and add in times the couple "forgot", the numbers go down.

This has been brought up before.

do you seriously not see the difference in telling kids "there is about a 2% chance a condom will break" and saying "condoms are 98% effective" :confused:

I agree. It just annoys me when people go around saying "it's like 99.999999999% effective" when it's not.

But it is. If you use it right.

The woman become pregant when the condom is not used right, breaks, or isn't used, or in a fraction of a percent of the times it doesn't work.

Not only that, but they protect extremely well against HIV/AIDS, certainly more than 85%.

The smart thing to do, of course, would be to use condoms in conjunction with birth control pills. And, once they get approved, those condoms that dissolve when sperm hits them and become a spermicide that also kills HIV/AIDS. It also comes in a version that only destroys HIV/AIDS, but allows the woman to become pregant..

do you seriously not see the difference in telling kids "there is about a 2% chance a condom will break" and saying "condoms are 98% effective" :confused:

Sure. One sounds better. But kids will realize 2%=Low risk, and 98%=high success rate.

But it is. If you use it right.

You're using the same BS "argument" that the "abstinence only" people use: "Abstinence is 100% effective if applied correctly!"

The thing is, people won't be abstinent. And people won't use condoms "right". Hence the enormous failure rate of abstinence and the less than "99%" safety of condoms.

You're using the same BS "argument" that the "abstinence only" people use: "Abstinence is 100% effective if applied correctly!"

The thing is, people won't be abstinent. And people won't use condoms "right". Hence the enormous failure rate of abstinence and the less than "99%" safety of condoms.

Of course, you have a point.

Also, semi-random tangent: Fass really doesn't have to worry about pregnancy, does he? :p

do you seriously not see the difference in telling kids "there is about a 2% chance a condom will break" and saying "condoms are 98% effective" :confused:
I would rather say "A condom is about 98% effective." and the failure rate over a year should be mentioned too. However, using the failure rate over a year to call planned parenthood liers is blatantly manipulative.

I would rather say "A condom is about 98% effective." and the failure rate over a year should be mentioned too. However, using the failure rate over a year to call planned parenthood liers is blatantly manipulative.
I didn't call them a liar, I used their page as a source, to prove that condoms are not 98% effective.

Also, semi-random tangent: Fass really doesn't have to worry about pregnancy, does he? :p

It's yet another one of the reasons as to why gay sex is better, but a.) condoms are a staple in my household nonetheless as I like being free of disease; and b.) I do have to "worry" about pregnancy as I hope to have children some day. I have to "worry" about the arrangements to make that happen.

I would just like to point out that the failure rate of condoms cannot be accurately calculated by how many women get pregnant, seeing as pregnancy involves a lot of other factors as well, such as ovulation. Also, some women take "plan B" pills, etc in the case of a broken condom, and hence do not become pregnant.

kthx

I say Genii. Cacti...Octopi...

Although it is often supposed that octopi is the 'correct' plural of octopus, and it has been in use for longer than the usual Anglicized plural octopuses, it in fact originates as an error. Octopus is not a simple Latin word of the second declension, but a Latinized form of the Greek word oktopous, and its 'correct' plural would logically be octopodes. ;)

Also - the collective name for a group of crows is a 'Murder' (as I am sure most of you already know) and a group of ravens is an 'Unkindness'.

Condoms only prevent HIV 86% of the time, NOT 99.9%.Not according to your source. To come to the conclusion that condoms prevent HIV 86% of the time requires the assumption that not using a condom prevents HIV 0% every time, and that probably isn't true.

I've been irked by the "relative to unprotected exposure" bit. What it basically says is that you're 85% less likely to contract HIV if you use a condom than when you don't, not that you're protected from HIV 85% of the time if you use a condom. The safety of a condom is based on how safe it is to have unsafe sex, which, according to the values on Wiki would be an estimated 10 infections per 10,000 exposures to an infected source for women having sex with men and 5 infections per 10,000 for men having sex with women (assuming no condom use). Now consider that you're 85% less likely to contract HIV relative to that if you use a condom.