But there were many other vectors besides needles and unprotected gay sex (see article linked), in fact, the index patient simply consumed bush meat that they probably should have left alone.

Yes, the first widely recognized case of HIV in the United States involved a highly promiscuous gay flight attendant, and this likely sped the spread of aids in the first period in the United States up considerably.

But once non-gay people became infected it did not take all that long before they were the bulk of the HIV positive population.

Even so, gay men engaging in unprotected sex and drug addicts re-using needles or swapping needles with others are at extremely high risk for HIV and Hepatitis contraction.

The United States only has a fraction of the world's HIV or AIDS cases, so it seems plausible that worldwide straight people could still represent the majority of cases.

It does seem difficult to get reliable estimates outside the US & Europe, though.

Edit: clarified I was talking about US cases

Did you just step out of a time machine or something?

The vast majority of AIDS victims in the world are not gay and never used drugs.

Have some stats:

https://www.avert.org/global-hiv-and-aids-statistics

[0] https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/overview/ataglance.html

Obviously you cannot update this strongly if you are selecting from the global population but you would still update in that direction. Making these priors explicit is extremely taboo.

It is that sort of stupid thinking that contributes to HIV spreading the way it does, after all: you are not a drug user and you are not gay, and neither is your partner, so what could possibly happen.

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/index.html

Canada -> 53% of new HIV infections are MSM http://www.catie.ca/en/fact-sheets/epidemiology/epidemiology...

Australia - > 68% of new HIV infections are MSM http://www.hivmediaguide.org.au/hiv-in-australia/hiv-statist...

UK -> 54% of new HIV infections are MSM http://www.catie.ca/en/fact-sheets/epidemiology/epidemiology...

Globally the situation is much different and about the same number of men as women have HIV and drugs do not appear to be a big factor in to the equation.

It is interesting how the data has changed over the years, for a long time gay men were not the largest group but maybe with the increased effectiveness of anti-virals combined with decreased mortality the balance has shifted substantially once again.

In the beginning of the AIDS epidemic it was basically a disease afflicting predominantly gay people and only rarely heterosexuals. The two groups being somewhat socially isolated was an important factor in this. Then the balance shifted as more and more heterosexual people got infected and was made worse by people thinking that HIV would pass them by because they were not gay.

So now we have come full circle.

Still, 32% (at best) are pretty lousy odds so better be very careful.

That's not how statistics work.

MSM and IV drug users are a small percent of the overall population. If you looked at the rate of HIV cases and divided by the respective population, you'd see that MSM and IV drug users are at a far greater risk of contracting HIV than heterosexuals (by magnitudes of order).

However, that certainly doesn't infer that heterosexual can't get AIDS and that they shouldn't seek to avoid it through appropriate measures.

For the mainstream population that is a much lower risk than for a smaller group that has a roughly equal incidence in absolute numbers.

But that risk is still substantial, and you do not want to end up as an entry in the tally of that 32%, which is a substantial number of individuals, if approximately 4% is LGBT then maybe 50% of those (so 2% of the population) takes 68% of the cases, leaving 98% to divide the remaining 32%.

There are many lotteries with far fewer winners.

So thank you for causing me to update my prior.

77% of all new infections are either homosexual men (68%) or IV drug abusers (9%).[1]

[1]https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/overview/ataglance.html

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/overview/ataglance.html

> found its way to the United States as early as 1960, but was first noticed after doctors discovered clusters of Kaposi's sarcoma and pneumocystis pneumonia in young gay men in Los Angeles, New York City, and San Francisco in 1981.

Please don't equate being a little under-informed or less up to date with stupid thinking.

EDIT: Ah, I think I mis understood your post. Your example at the end was of poor thinking but I don't the think the parent you had replied to was making that mistake either.

I think that stereotype was about U.S. (among other places). Do the stats for the U.S. only reflect the stereotype at all, or is it completely unfounded at this point?

I believe you need to say "gay men or drug users". Regardless, it's better not to assume things about other people. The "stigma" jacquesm refers to isn't a matter of assessing the likelihood that someone is gay, it's a matter of the judgment these people receive as a result which has prevented people from receiving treatment, and still does.