The extent of the Aids epidemic in India was dramatically scaled down yesterday as new, more reliable government figures revealed less than half the number of infections previously suggested by UN estimates.
India has been portrayed as the country with probably the most catastrophic HIV prospects in the world because of the danger of infection spreading through its population of more than a billion.
The UN estimated that 5.7 million people were HIV positive - more than any other country. South Africa has an estimated 5.5 million people with HIV. But it was accepted that the figures were unreliable, because of the inadequacy of the data and the sheer scale of the country.
Yesterday the Indian government, backed by Unaids, revealed figures which slashed the number to 2.47 million, putting it behind South Africa and Nigeria. The new statistics are based on much more extensive survey data.
The India figures affect the global picture. The official estimate for 2006 was that 39.5 million people were affected. That must now come down to around 36 million.
India still finds itself in the grip of an epidemic and the government stressed it did not underestimate the problem.
"In terms of human lives affected, the number is still large, in fact very large. This is very worrying for us." the health minister, Anbumani Ramadoss, said,
The new estimates were announced at the launch of a £1.39bn national Aids control programme, which aims to get many more infected people on drug treatment to suppress the virus and introduce prevention schemes across the country.
"This is our last window of opportunity to reverse the epidemic and ensure it does not get into the general population because if it does, we are done for," said Sujatha Rao, head of the government's National Aids Control Organisation.
The new figures have been worked out from a range of surveys and surveillance data, but the most important element is a family health survey, which for the first time asked over 100,000 people about HIV. The survey was carried out by researchers who went into homes in villages and towns and asked questions of everybody on the premises that day. They also asked people to volunteer for blood tests to detect malaria, vitamin C deficiencies and HIV.
In the early days of Aids surveillance, only those who went to a health clinic feeling unwell were counted. Then checks were made on women in antenatal clinics, where blood tests could be done. This gave a good idea of the numbers of urban women with HIV, but told the statisticians little about rural people and particularly men.
