    |
|||||
|
|
Hoping that perhaps the discrepancies were due to the small numbers of AIDS cases, compared to the relatively large population of India, I tried to see if there were any correlations to the HIV prevalence rates per state found on the NACO website. From the factors listed above the only one that correlated with HIV prevalence rate is the rate of beggar, vagrant, etc. yielding a correlation of .329, which shows a relationship between HIV prevalence rate and vagrancy rate 90 percent of the time. (Table 5) I also found two new factors that correlated with HIV prevalence rate and that once again indicated that in India the problem of AIDS may be entwined with a deeper problem. “To calculate HIV estimates, India uses the HIV sentinel surveillance system that has been recognized as an optimal mechanism to monitor trends of HIV infection in specific high-risk groups as well as low risk groups globally. Since 1998, this set of data from the HIV surveillance is also used to estimate the number of HIV infections in the country, by taking into account certain assumptions. These assumptions were evolved after a series of consultations with national and international experts. During 2003-04, these assumptions were validated through deliberations.” (NACO) In total, there are 271 sites at ante-natal clinics, 166 sites in clinics for sexually transmitted diseases, 13 sites among injecting drug users, 3 sites for men having sex with men, and 2 sites for
commercial sex workers nationwide. (NACO). Interestingly enough there is a .346 correlation between number of HIV surveillance site and HIV prevalence rate. (Table 5) This relationship indicates, that in states where greater screening opportunities are available more infections are found. This could also be inferred as evidence fro underreporting of HIV positive cases. Also, a seemingly absurd question on the NACO website, led me to my strongest statistic. One person had asked, “Is it safe to work with someone infected with HIV?” Wondering why anyone would associate interaction with an infected person with acquiring HIV, I correlated the HIV prevalence rate to work participation rate in each state. This yields a correlation of .376, relating work participation and HIV prevalence by 95%. No definitions were provided on the Census website; hence I had to make certain assumptions about what a category meant. For example, in the work participation category, I assumed they simply meant rate of employed people. |
||||
