Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
TWENTY-FIVE COUNTRIES, many in hard-hit Africa, have at least halved new HIV infections in the past decade, with particular progress made toward protecting children from the deadly virus, the United Nations said Tuesday.
“We are moving from despair to hope,” Michel Sidibe, the executive director of UNAIDS, told reporters in Geneva, pointing out that around half of all reductions in new HIV infections in the past two years had been among children.
“It is becoming evident that achieving zero new HIV infections in children is possible,” he said.
In its annual report on the state of the global pandemic, UNAIDS said that 25 low- and middle-income countries had managed to at least halve their rate of new HIV infections since 2001, representing a reduction of 700,000 new HIV infections.
More than half of those countries were in Africa, the region most affected by HIV, the agency said, pointing out for instance that Malawi had cut new infections by 73 per cent, while Botswana had seen a 68-percent drop.
20 per cent drop from 2001
Globally, new HIV infections fell to 2.5 million last year from 2.6 million in 2010 and represented a 20-percent drop from 2001, UNAIDS said.
“The pace of progress is quickening. What used to take a decade is now being achieved in 24 months,” Sidibe said.
Particular progress had been made in bringing down the number of children newly infected with HIV.
Last year, 330,000 children worldwide were infected with the virus that causes AIDS, down from 370,000 in 2010, and 43 percent fewer than in 2003, UNAIDS said.
And in sub-Saharan Africa — a region that today is home to 90 percent of the world’s infected youngsters — the number of children newly infected with the virus that causes AIDS dropped 24 percent between 2009 and 2011 alone, UNAIDS said.
The number of global deaths linked to AIDS has meanwhile fallen for five consecutive years, the agency said.
In 2011, 1.7 million people died from AIDS-related causes worldwide — down 24 percent from 2005 and nearly six percent below the 2010 level, according to the report published ahead of World AIDS Day on December 1.
That corresponds to more than half a million fewer deaths in 2011 than in 2005, UNAIDS said.
“A new era of hope has emerged in countries and communities across the world that had previously been devastated by AIDS,” said the agency, which spearheads the international campaign against the disease.
It stressed that the “historic success” of broad HIV programmes combined with new ways of preventing people from becoming infected and from dying of AIDS-related illnesses “has enabled the foundation to be laid for the eventual end of AIDS.”
Despite the general progress however, the number of people living with HIV rose slightly last year to 34 million, up from 33.5 million in 2010, according to the report.
Epicentre of the epidemic
In sub-Saharan Africa — the epicentre of the epidemic — the number of people dying from AIDS-related causes fell by 32 percent, or from 1.8 to 1.2 million, between 2005 and 2011.
And the Caribbean — the second most HIV affected region in the world — saw AIDS-related deaths fall by 42 percent between 2005 and 2011.
While most of the world has made great strides in the battle against HIV and AIDS, UNAIDS lamented that Eastern Europe and Central Asia had seen a 21-percent hike in AIDS-linked deaths between 2005 and 2011, when 92,000 people died.
During the same period, AIDS-related deaths rose 17 percent in the Middle East and North Africa, to 23,000, while new infections in that region have soared 35 percent since 2001, the report showed.
Overall, UNAIDS credited the drop in Aids-related deaths to greater access to antiretroviral therapy and the steady decline in HIV incidence since the peak in 1997.
Since 1995, HIV treatment has saved 14 million life-years in low and middle-income countries, including nine million in sub-Saharan Africa, UNAIDS said.
However, the report lamented, some seven million people worldwide cannot access the life-saving HIV treatment they are eligible for, including a full 72 percent of children living with the virus and eligible for treatment.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
私たちは別のチェルノブイリをしたくない
Fair enough
Totally agree. Well said.
チェルノブイリは50人が死亡した。
Surely nuke generally refers to nuclear weapons, no?
It’s shoddy, unnecessary use of slang either way.
Let us all know if you find any spelling mistakes in the article, Heir Paul.
I don’t know why I’m answering you Kevin but here goes.
There is a big difference between a spelling mistake and a misuse of language. One of them can mislead the reader and one generally doesn’t. Can you guess which is which?
The headline of this article would lead one to believe a nuclear weapons plant was being closed down which obviously isn’t the case, particularly because Japan don’t produce nuclear weapons AFAIK.
That’s “Herr”, Herr Kevin. JFYI. :)
Totally agree with Paul ….
The word nuke should not of been used in the headlines.Theres a big difference in a nuclear bomb and a nuclear power plant.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NukeNuke may refer to: [edit] Science. Nuclear weapon (or, when used as a verb, the act of deploying one) …
Yeah that’s what the focus should be on !
全く違う
No need for that Seamus!
Sure that big ball of light in the sky is spuing radiation every minute of the day. Don’t be scare mongerin!!
The radiation in the sky causing the blue fin tuna who spawn around Japan and are fished around west coast America to contain massive levels of radiation!?? Mutated worms… Flowers… Etc etc
Sinead, can you direct us to some place to support your statement, “blue tuna has ….massive doses of radiation”.
From the article based on the PNAS paper you posted Sinead
“The levels of radioactive caesium were 10 times higher than the amount measured in tuna off the California coast in previous years. But even so, that’s still far below safe-to-eat limits set by the US and Japanese governments.”
Sinead be careful what you read. I recently watched a documentary about the high levels of radiation around chernobyl & research on animals living there. It turns out that the wild life around the plant is thriving including fish but does contain high levels of radiation. However its not affecting their young & because animals have a shorter life than humans not allowing cancers to develope
Sinead, radioactivity can be measured in unbelievably small amounts. At very low levels radioactivity is not dangerous, if it was we wouldn’t be here. We live in a radioactive world. You have about 1,000,000,000 atoms of radioactive Uranium in your body. You need to educate yourself on this matter so you are not unnecessarily frightened, and not on nonsensical anti-science web sites, to understand why this is so.
Sinead, where does it say in that newspaper article, “massive levels of radiation”? All they are saying is that they can detect radioactive caesium which they know comes from Japan. It is probably very minuscule amounts, the EXACT opposite to massive amounts as you claimed.
Worst atomic crisis in a generation!?? That should say ever! and still hemmorhaging nuclear waste!!
Never heard of Chernobyl no?
Not been keeping up to date on Fukushima no!?? worse than Chernobel ever was and still spewing radiation…… So yes…. by far worst ever and that’s hoping that reactor 4 doesn’t go too as that contains new fuel rods that will make the damage so far look like child’s play….
Waste of time Sinead … People in this country won’t even recognise the fact that there was a meltdown in sellafield ( fuel rods were just buried ) never mind the other side of the world
Really? We can attribute a good 4,000+ deaths to Chernobyl. Not one from Fukushima.
You wanna back that up Chino?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire
Yes I do want to back it up
The Windscale fire? Really? You’re citing that as a meltdown at Sellafield?
There was no meltdown ffs, it was a fire. And it wasn’t even Sellafield.
Oh ok then sellafield wasn’t called windscale and a nuclear reactor going on fire because fuel rods overheated isn’t a meltdown ! Good man
The accident occurred when the core of the Unit 1 nuclear reactor at Windscale, Cumberland (now Sellafield, Cumbria) caught fire, releasing substantial amounts of radioactive contamination into the surrounding area
No Chino, it is not. A meltdown occurs when the fuel melts through the containment vessel. Which didn’t occur at Windscale.
Ok Your right what was I thinking … Oh wait was the fuel removed in 2008 like it was supposed to be and why did they have to wait so long to think about removing it
Because you can’t just waltz in when you feel like it and remove the fuel. You have to be sure it’s stable and cool enough to be removed and contained safely.
The reactors at Three Mile Island, unlike those at Windscale and Chernobyl, were in buildings designed to contain radioactive materials released by a reactor accident.
If the building isn’t ‘designed’ to contain a radioactive breach … ah I’m wasting my time anyway. You were wrong when you said windscale wasn’t sellafield but you kept going anyway … Good luck and remember ‘ your always right regardless of the fact that your not’
Chino, only about 50 people died as a result of Chernobyl’s release of radiation. There isn’t a shred of evidence that any other people died or will die. The 4,000 figure you quoted is misquoted. That’s the MAXIMUM that the UN said could die, not the number expected to die. All recent research points to the ability of humans to repair small damage done by low levels of radiation or to put it another way, a low dose of radiation, even a continuous low does, is harmless. That no doubt disappoints you as well Sinead.
Thanks William … Eh I didn’t misquote any number of deaths because I never mentioned anything about deaths !
Didn’t the Chinese offer monetary support in the ‘wake’ (pun intended) of the Fukushima tsunami? Who knew the Chinese had such a good sense of humour.
The Chinese won’t forget ‘Unit 731′, where the Japanese were kind enough to perform vivisection, free of charge. /shudder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
Jesus christ, that was disturbing read.
When Chernobyl happened the priority was to build a ‘shield’ around the reactor, people put their lives at risk to build a cover over the damaged building …. Fukushima is still bleeding radiation into the atmosphere and nobody seems to be questioning it !!! Ah but sher it’s only a bit of radiation
Chino, correct, it’s only a bit of radiation. Most of the radiation that is now released into the atmosphere is from burning coal.
I suppose you are opposed to wind farms !
Fukushima can’t be that dangerous if all it takes to protect the PM is the same face mask the Japanese use to prevent pollutants caused by burning fossil fuels from getting into their lungs. As an aside there are hundreds of thousands of people killed worldwide every year from these pollutants.
Hairy japanese bastards
Most of these plants get products from them reprocessed which in turn can be used for weapons. So its not an incorrect use of the word.
Oh for god’s sake.
Is it a nuclear weapons plant?
No, it’s not.
@Mjhint: Actually no, its a myth, you cant build a nuclear bomb using spent fuel from a civilian reactor, here is why.
Its true that plutonium is produced as waste by civilian reactors, but its not weapons grade, the isotope profile is completely wrong and would not work in a bomb.
Only military reactors can produce weapons grade material, they are designed to be run on a super short fuel, specially to create the necessary ratio of Pu239 to Pu240
A civilian reactor is just not designed to run that way.
http://depletedcranium.com/why-you-cant-build-a-bomb-from-spent-fuel/
Thanks my information was incorrect so. I have been looking a people promoting thorium power plants & they have said the origional purpose of these older type reactors was to make weapons as well as power generation.
@Mjhint, in that case you are also correct, solid fuel Uranium reactors were the first to be built precisely because they could produce materal for the manhattan project (the first were exclusively military, like B reactor at Hanford) , it was only about a decade later that they considered building reactors for civilian power gereration and so significantly changed the designs to suit that application.
have your say