What kind of infections are people with HIV vulnerable to?
They are more susceptible to bacterial, fungal, and viral infections in general, which healthy people are all exposed to. Healthy immune systems are able to fight these off. The types of infections that become a problem for people with compromised immune systems are called "opportunistic infections". In particular, these infections have a much higher incidence in people with HIV: 1. CMV or Cytomegalovirus - this is the virus that causes genital warts. It also causes characteristic eye infections in HIV infected patients. 2. EBV or Epstein-Barr Virus - this virus causes mononucleosis, and also causes a condition called hairy tongue which is found almost exclusively in HIV infected patients. 3. Candidiasis - Causes vaginal and oral yeast (fungal) infections. 4. Other fungal infections that may infect the lungs or central nervous system such as Toxoplasmosis and Histoplasmosis 5. Pneumonia - in particular PCP pneumonia (PCP stands for pneumocystis carinii pneumonia) PCP is a bacterial pneumonia that responds well to treatment with the antibiotic Bactrim. This particular pneumonia is very rare in people NOT infected with HIV. These diseases are also associated with HIV: 1. Lymphoma - this usually manifests as swollen lymph nodes, or "glands", and can be related to an enlarged spleen. It's also associated with EBV. 2. Kaposi's Sarcoma - This is a kind of cancer very common in people with full blown AIDS, but VERY rare in healthy individulas. It causes dark discolorations that appear in different places on the skin.
Some suggest lower infant mortality rates and higher life expectancies in countries with socialized medicine?
Simple. Countries do not tally infant deaths in the same way - some do not at all - nor do they attempt to save the infants. Rate me down if you wish, but these are the facts. This is a prime example of correlation vs. causation and poor statistics. This is similar to the argument regarding overall life expectancy. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) definition, all babies showing any signs of life - such as muscle activity, a gasp for breath or a heartbeat - should be counted as a live birth. The U.S. strictly follows this definition. ----But many other countries do not.---- Switzerland, for example, doesn't count the death of very small babies, less than 30 centimeters (11.8 inches) in length as a live birth. In other countries, such as Italy, definitions (as to what accounts as a live birth) vary depending on where you are in the country. Quoting from the study: "**American advances** in medical treatment now make it possible to save babies who would have surely died only a few decades ago. Until recently, very low birth-weight babies - less than 3 pounds - almost always died. Now, some of these babies survive. While such vulnerable babies may live with advanced medical assistance and technology, low birth-weight babies (weighing less than 5.5 pounds) recently had an infant mortality rate 20 times higher than heavier babies, according to WHO. Ironically, U.S. doctors' ability to save babies' lives causes higher infant mortality numbers here than would be the case with less advanced treatment." P.S. I was referring to others giving the thumbs-down. No worries.
Bacteria may seem to mutate at high rates because their replication cycles can be very short. Under optimal conditions an E. coli can duplicate within 20 minutes. That is even faster than it takes to duplicate it’s genome. They use a trick to achieve that, i.e. starting the next replication before the first is completed.If one considers the entire organism, a replication time of 20 minutes is a lot faster than the typical 15–35 years of humans. Our individual cells do replicate faster, of course (for a rapidly replicating human cell this is in the order of 24 hours), and have comparable mutation rates per nucleotide. This also underlines the importance of sex to exchange helpful mutations with/from other individuals.The mutation rate per nucleotide may not be higher in bacteria, but they continuously put mutations to the test of viability (every 20 minutes, under optimal conditions), whereas in our case it is once every human generation.In fact, when counting the total number of mutations, each of our cells collects more of them in a single round of replication than a bacterial cell would (unless mutagens are present). The reason is that there is a lot more genome in our cells which can mutate, although effects of individual mutations are far less likely to have a biological impact, as information density is higher in bacterial genomes.
Take a look at the following page:Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) (per 1000 live births)The infant mortality rates as can be seen are fairly variable between states. As a matter of fact, the standard deviation for males in 2013 was 11.3913 and the average is 35.81. Roughly speaking, since the median is 36 and the mode is 39 and the kurtosis is -0.23, we might say that India’s male 2013 infant mortality rate of 39 places it slightly above average, but nothing empirically significant.The same can be said for females. I won’t go into a hypothesis test here because I believe your question can be answered more generally: what are the reasons for high infant mortality?There are many reasons for this, and it relates to the reasons for mortality. In areas of poverty or just an overall less financially well situation, one might expect mortality to be heavily influenced bygeographical locationlevel of income of familyhigher likelihood of a disease outbreaklower level of education and/or medical carebad-health habits of parents in the case of infantsamong other factors.I hope this helps!
Why are white people so much better than black people?
Alright, most people act like i'm a nazi for saying this, but i'm just an honest neurochemist. Black people have very high amounts of norepinephrine in their brains, an adrenergic stress hormone; why? because a couple hundred years ago they lived in rural africa where they had to hunt, fight, run away, be loud to scare predators, etc... Non mixed africans as opposed to african americans even lack some serotonin receptors required for higher logic. White people are the nicest because they have high amounts of serotonin receptors, dopamine, not too much norepinephrine (there are some serious exceptions) and a high amount of serotonin metabolizing enzymes; you see in mongoloids (including asians, hispanics, etc..) They lack the enzyme that metabolizes serotonin do to a deletion mutation in their DNA, when serotonin sticks around for a longer time people tend to start getting angry and holding grudges about things that us white people call stupid little things, so when a mexican gets mad because you "disrespected" him lol it's because their brains can't metabolize serotonin very well. No one is equal, and it's dangerous to treat everyone as if they are equal. No man is created equal, "All beings should be born with equal Rights"
Mortality rate is another way to say death rate. It is a measure of the number of deaths due to a particular cause in a population. Mortality rate (or death rate) is usually expressed in units of deaths per 1,000 per year or it could be described as percent dead in a specific period of time. For example in the US: Lung cancer has a high mortality rate (46.0 per 100,000) vs thyroid cancer (0.5 per 100,000) which has a low mortality rate. Or another way to look at the data is to look at the mortality rate after 5 years with lung cancer at 83.9% vs 2.3% for thyroid cancer. Conclusion: lung cancer is a common cancer with with a high mortality rate. Thyroid cancer is an uncommon cancer with a low mortality rate.
It's probably best to refer to us as being African-American or black. It's important to note that if someone's family came from somewhere that wasn't Africa then they may prefer for you to call them black or something else. For example: Someone from Haiti may want to be referred to as Haitian-American instead of African-American.The absolute worst thing you could do is refer to someone by the n-word. It's a racial slur and saying it to the wrong person could end poorly for you.Negro isn't necessarily impolite but no one uses it anymore. MLK used it because it was more commonplace during his time. My grandparents were born in the 30s and their birth certificates say Negro, however they don't refer to themselves using that word. They use black or African American.I won't lie to you though, the best thing to call a black person is by their name. You're less likely to offend anyone that way.Requested by Gavriil Prigk
There are a couple of possibilities mentioned in other answers. I will add my own, somewhat similar, and then point to something that has not yet been mentioned.First, as to whether test error can be smaller than training error: not likely, but possible. There could be multiple reasons this might occur. For example, the test set is smaller than the training set, but very much like it with less noise. From what you've said, both sets are small. If you're regularizing your training, it's possible (although it's unlikely) that the regularization is somehow optimal in the sense that it removes overfitting (so poorer training error) while generalizing well (good test error.)It's also possible it's an artifact of your splitting mechanism.You know the training error, so this isn't a separate train-test real life split. It's quite possible that the way you split your data into training and test sets is somehow the cause. Any of the reasons that have been presented by any of the answers here, mine included, could be true in addition to the splitting mechanism. Of course, how you should split depends on the nature of the data. If there are, e.g., spatial and/or temporal differences, you should split differently than if there are not.
For the sake of explanation, I'm going to take your question as meaning, "can I have sex with an HIV-infected person and not get infected myself?”The answer is: yes, absolutely! In fact, if your sexual partner is on medication for HIV (we call this antiretroviral therapy, or ART) and their viral loads are undetectable, your risk of contracting HIV from vaginal sex with them is <5%. Seriously!Obviously, if that person is not on medication, the risk is much much higher than that. But even in that situation, having sexual intercourse with an HIV-infected person doesn't mean you will automatically become infected with HIV.So, yes, it is possible. But I'm not done yet!A few caveats:The risk I quoted above is without a condom. If you use a condom, the risk is even lower than that. You probably should be wearing a condom anyway, not just to prevent HIV but also viral hepatitis, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and other STDs.Anal sex has a tenfold higher risk of transmission than vaginal sex. In particular, the person receiving anal sex (the “bottom”) is 13 times more likely to contract HIV than the person inserting (the “top”).As the partner of an HIV-infected individual, if you take antiretroviral medications yourself (even though you don't actually have HIV) this reduces the risk even further. Doctors are now routinely providing these medications to non-infected partners as prophylaxis.If you routinely have sexual intercourse with an HIV-infected person, no matter whether it's one person or twenty, you should be routinely tested and monitored by a physician. Remember, the risk is low, but it's not zero!Source: HIV Risk Behaviors (cdc.gov)