Hacker News Reader

Basically I agree with this sentiment "So what should we conclude? Green et al. get it right: “Before circumcising millions of men in regions with high prevalences of HIV infection, it is important to consider alternatives. A comparison of male circumcision to condom use concluded that supplying free condoms is 95 times more cost effective.”"

View on HN

That's as silly as focusing on teaching abstinence. Sure, it'd work... in theory. In practice, people don't like condoms and HIV rates would be largely unchanged.

The best hope we have is to work on many fronts at the same time: education, condoms, voluntary circumcision, etc.

People don't like condoms in western countries too but they don't seem to have the same sky-high HIV rates. I don't see how making condoms available for free would hurt.

You're indicting the entire premise of modern safe sex. Either condoms are rarely used and people cannot be taught to use them reliably, or you're wrong. The low infection rate in industrialized countries with good sex education and readily available condoms suggests you're wrong. Contrarily, abstinence hasn't been demonstrated to work anywhere.

Says it all, really. Interestingly the same applies back home...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com