i do, and i really have sweet, sappy things to say (though, i've just been busy busy). But I haven't been able to wipe this news from my brain...and how awfully grim it is. You hear the stories, you read the news headlines about the "epidemic" in DC, but seeing it here in this shocking visual gives it a entirely different, dare i say--horrifying--dimension. My jaw dropped when I saw this. My city *sigh* 
p.s. and let's add another layer, shall we? DC is not a state :-(
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
i promise to be more pleasant.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Actually, the fact that it's not a state may be a good thing. I'm guessing (haven't checked) that HIV rates are higher in urban areas than outside (b/c there are more potential partners for any HIV+ person in a small urban space than a similarly sized rural place). And since these rates have a denominator of per 100,000 it doesn't matter how many people there are altogether.
The individual risk remains the same despite the population, and whereas NYC's rate is diluted by say Albany and White Plains, D.C. has no rural areas to reduce its average infection rate.
There's no denying this is a terrible stat and a big problem (particularly since I date in D.C. dammit), but it's important to understand the implications exactly.
Post a Comment