Circumcision can cut a man's risk of HIV infection by 60 per cent
While true (within a few %), the 60% figure is per-exposure, meaning in the aggregate (i.e. numerous exposures over ones lifetime) the protection provided by circumcision is minimal. Keep in mind that your chance of being infected (as a male having sex with a female whom is HIV positive) is ~30/10,000 (AKA 0.3%) per sexual encounter. Reducing that 60% reduces your risk of infection to ~12:10,000 (AKA 0.12%). On the scale of epidemiology that difference is nearly meaningless. You need reductions several orders in magnitude to have a large effect.
This is being promoted by the WHO and other organisations simply because it is cheap an requires no "user" action (like condoms). But you plug 0.3% infection/exposure and 0.12%/exposure into any epidemiological model and you'll find that the difference in terms of epidemic control is all but meaningless. Today there is ~2.6 million HIV infections per year. At 0.12%/exposure that would drop to ~1.8 million (using a single-compartmental model*). Not even close to slowing the epidemic.
*this model overestimates the effect, by assuming all infections are female-to-male transmission.
Its also worth pointing out that circumcision does nothing to prevent male-to-female transmission, homosexual transmission, or drug-use/contaminated medial equipment transmission - all major factors associated with HIV world-wide.
Bryan
PS: I find myself agreeing with pre; did hell freeze over? To alter (modify, mutilate; pick your preferred verb) the genitalia of a non-consenting (and unable to consent) child in the name of a modest and dubious medical effect (or religion), is utterly and totally wrong.
