Since we don’t have any important disagreements about the danger of false hope (my eyes, too, bugged out at the Economist cover you refer to), or the real hope that exists, let me cut to the chase and try to bring some closure to this dialogue without asking you to speak for Sullivan or Sanford:
1) I thought Sullivan’s article prematurely explored the end of AIDS, and that this could easily lead to false hope.
2) Even with the caveats, I thought Sanford over-optimistically assessed his future when he said he was more likely to be hit by a truck than die from AIDS, and that he had survived this scourge. Again, I think this could fuel false hope.
Do you disagree or agree with these two points? Why?
Is the AIDS Epidemic Over?
Advertisement
