Talk:HIV adult prevalence rate

data for Brazil

The table in the article quotes a 90% prevalence of HIV infected in Brazil!! I think this should be about 2.5% - can somebody who knows the correct figure edit this??

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dameunmate (talk • contribs) 18:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considewring info at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Brazil and the fact that it's ranked as 15th in population despite the number shown, it should be 660,000 people infected; I'll correct for that now.

189.68.207.187 (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swaziland data

The Swaziland article states 42.6% HIV prevalence, this article only 36.8%. Should we use one data source for all the numbers (in which case the article should be WHO report Xś figures on HIV prevalence¨) or the best/latest/most accurate data sources? Ppe42 08:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

does anyone think serbia and montenegro should be further separeted? Qrc2006 22:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless there is data available for them as separate entities. --Erielhonan 01:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging List of countries by people living with HIV/AIDS and List of countries by HIV/AIDS adult prevalence rate

Here's a proposal for merging the HIV/AIDS population ranking table with the HIV/AIDS prevalence ranking table. I am also posting a link back to this talk page on Talk:List of countries by people living with HIV/AIDS, where I also pipe up in favor of merging these pages.

	Population			Prevalence
Country / Territory	Ranked by HIV/AIDS population	people living with HIV/AIDS	Date of Population Data	Ranked by prevalence rate(%)	HIV/AIDS adult prevalence rate(%)	Date of Prevalence Data
World	—	38,217,530	—	—	—	—
Swaziland	33	220,000	2003 est.	1	38.80	2003 est.
Botswana	22	350,000	2003 est.	2	37.30	2003 est.
Lesotho	25	320,000	2003 est.	3	28.90	2003 est.
Zimbabwe	4	1,800,000	2001 est.	4	24.60	2001 est.

Merged demo table trimmed, complete table available in history

Please feel free to edit or wikify before inclusion/merger. --Erielhonan 01:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good and thanks for your work, though I have a few suggestions:

Maybe use wiki markup (see Help:Table)
Split the tables in a population table and a prevalence table and sort them separately (like this or this)
Remove the Date of Population Data columns and turn that info into footnotes

Need help?

--Van helsing 09:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Van helsing:

I spent far too much time on this at the time I did it to put more time into wikifying it at that time. Unless there's a wiki markup plug-in for Dreamweaver?
I actually combined two tables that show the data in the manner you suggest. I wanted to see them in comparison to each other, because separately they are incomplete pictures of depth and breadth of the epidemic.
the Date of Population Data column highlights how stale the data is. IMHO no sense re-publishing this data if it's mostly 3-4 years old, particularly given how quickly the disease spreads and its mortality rate. This table was created out of my interest expressed in the point above.
Your point taken about footnoting it, but in the interest of accuracy and transparency I prefer if the date of the datapoints is inline with the data, a la List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures. It makes it clear if all datapoints are not from the same year (which may be important to a researcher), and it also makes it clear if the data isn't up-to-date (also notable if someone wants to cite the information). If most data in a set has similar chrono characteristics I'd say fine to note the date of the data in the header of the table and footnote the outliers, but when the dates are mixed as they are in this table I say it's better to include it inline.

--Erielhonan 01:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it appears at first unelegant, but in reality, sometimes the best data isn't all gonna be from the same date. Personally, I like the merged table, and suggest we wiki-ize it and maintain it on a best-data-available basis, rather than trying to use "snapshots" of data (like from the CIA!) for an actively changing epidemic. - Eric 07:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, I was feeling bold, so I just did it. I wikified the above table and put it into place. Please comment! - Eric 08:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bold? :-) That’s good work, thanks. Think we can complete the merge now. Maybe even introduce sorting, though to let it work properly, some changes have to be made. --Van helsing 08:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the current article title (List of countries by HIV/AIDS adult prevalence rate) still considered correct? Or would "List of countries by HIV/AIDS" or "List of countries by HIV/AIDS prevalence (or occurrence)" be a better description of the information the article now contains? We also need to take care of all the links coming in to the merged articles, therefore we need a final proper name. --Van helsing 09:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CIA

Um, wait, why are we using data from the CIA World Factbook? Surely there's a better option- U.N.? WHO? UNICEF? - Eric 07:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inexactness

Almost all prevalence numbers are rounded off to the nearest .1% number, and in many cases incorrectly - Sweden is listed as having 3600 cases, and a 0.1 prevalence. Given Sweden's population of 9 million, that would give a prevalence of 0.04%. It'd admittedly be a lot of work to rework these numbers, but shouldn't we at least cut off the (false) zero? (Making 38.40% into 38.4% etc) Lejman 19:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poland

Poland 031 120,650 2007 est. 55 1.10 2005 est.

??? According to polish article pl:HIV and polish authorities , there are ~10000 HIV diagnosed cases, and ~30000 estimated (diagnosed+non-diagnosed) in Poland. It's quite a difference between ~120000 AIDS cases (by this article) and ~30000 HIV cases (by other sources), isn't it?

[1] - Polish state agency monitoring AIDS and HIV cases - by the end of 2005 - ~2000 diagnosed AIDS cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.56.80.66 (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[2] - the answer to that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.56.80.66 (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Severely Bad Data here

Column 6, HIV/AIDS adult prevalence rate(%), has no data points between 0.1 and 1.0, leading me to believe that some or all of the ones below .01 should in fact be 5 to 10 times as high. That, and the fact that they're often sorted incorreectly (they dont obey the order of the table). Someone who has access to the original source should go and fix the table. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's worse than that. Norway and Iraq and shown next to each other in the first table (rate of incidence), and yet Norway has 2,100 cases and a population of only 4.8 million whereas Iraq has only 500 cases but a population of 31 million. Something very wrong here. I have no idea which number is wrong - the percentage, or the number of cases (I DO know that the population numbers I have quoted are correct). I just surfed on into this subject, thus I have no interest in figuring out what is wrong with it, but some thing is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.200.175 (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]