I posted same on LA and PS boards.
-- Modified on 5/12/2004 1:51:46 PM
I posted same on LA and PS boards.
....even though they worked with Darren James AFTER he presumably infected the unfortunate Miss Arroyo, Jessica Dee and Laura Roxx.....wonder if it represents good luck, specific sex acts, or the infectivity rate quoted by Mathesar...
I quote from "Forgotten Statistics: A Refresher Course With Applications to Economics and Business", by Downing and Clark, Barron's.
---
This is the key question you should ask whenever an amazing coincidence seems to have occurred: Did you wonder about the probability of this coincidence before or after it happened? If you truly identified the probability of a particular event as being very small, and then it happens, that is truly amazing. However, you will find life is full of amazing coincidences if you are allowed to consider the likelihood of occurrence after they have happened. For example, suppose you are driving down the street and note with astonishment that the license plate of the car ahead of you reads FLG 427. You realize that the chance of this happening is only 1 in 26^3*10^3 = 17,576,000. However, that is only an astonishing coincidence if you had been wondering in advance whether you would be behind car FLG 427; otherwise, it is a totally pointless piece of trivia.
---
The fact is that the three women who became HIV-positive from James all did double anal with him. There were thirteen women who had sex with him. How many of the ten who did not become HIV-positive did double anal I don't know. However, it is obvious that no women who did not do double anal became HIV-posiive.
Is this significant or a pointless piece of trivia?
I would like to think the correlation between double anal and HIV infection is meaningful, but it is up to the medical experts to decide if there is a connection. It is impossible to argue anything from probability theory alone after the fact.
-- Modified on 5/13/2004 2:02:46 AM
The reason that I suggested that Mathesar's initial use of the published 0.01 estimated probability of infection was insufficient, was BECAUSE of the understanding that Porn involved extreme behaviors such as DP vaginal and DP anal sex.
And, in retrospect, what we see has resulted from the testing of the community after Darren James' initial HIV infection could very rationally be explained by saying the Mathesar's initial 0.01 estimates were valid in cases where no unprotected DP anal or DP vaginal sex acts were carried out, but entirely invalid (and in fact, an extreme underestimation, by well over an order of magnitude) in cases where unprotected Double Penetrations, especially of the anal variety, were involved.
What has occurred has almost exactly followed the model I predicted, except that the observed occurrence of transmission from unprotected Double Penetrations, is even higher than I initially postulated (my initial prediction being "up to an order of magnitude greater" than the probabilities Mathesar used). And in fact, there was a logical basis for my prediction, based on what is believed to be a causality factor for the transmission of HIV. It is believed that most cases involve transmission of an infected bodily fluid into the bloodstream of the recipient. And Double Penetration acts are MUCH more likely to cause tearing of the skin of the recipient, due to un-natural stress of having two large pornstar cocks in an oriface that was AT MOST, designed to handle one such object at a time. Hence the causality model that was the underpinning of my prediction that Mathesar's initial forecast for zero to one case among the 1st generation contacts was too low.
But Mathesar is correct when he points out that it's a misuse of statistics to retrofit the probabilities AFTER the observance of the data. One can only use this as a predictor for a future set of independently distributed observations, as a means of testing what we THINK we now know.
-- Modified on 5/13/2004 3:26:45 PM
.....let's take the # of male orgasms X volume of fluid "shared" X the # of orifices penetrated /# of females making films/week as a factor of risk, uhhh, then....uhhhh (just kidding).....