No, I meant it the way it's written. I think you and I are talking about two different ideas, though.
I know that's what you
meant, I was just telling you that you're wrong.
You seem to be comparing the deaths directly related by the surgery of circumcision itself vs. the deaths from HIV alone.
With this idea, I agree with your point.
But that's not the idea I was talking about.
In the "old times" I was talking about, I'm not only worried about "deaths from HIV" for those who were uncircumcised.
I was speaking much more about the deaths just from general uncleanliness for those who were uncircumcised. Which includes a lot more deaths. Especially without modern cleaning practices.
I do agree that modern medicine has drastically reduced the risk of infection with regards to circumcision.
But it is grossly outweighed by the risk of disease (all disease, not just HIV) for the uncircumcised if you take away modern cleaning practices (washing every day...).
I'm not sure from where you're getting your figures for the number of deaths related to infection from surgery and the number of deaths from venereal disease that would have been prevented by circumcision in the ancient world. For obvious reasons, there aren't any, so this can be nothing but speculation.
I'd disagree that washing every day is a modern cleaning practice. Don't look to the appalling hygiene standards that existed in pre-modern Europe and assume this was the standard for the ancient world. Most pre-modern cultures had stricter hygiene standards than this, including those which practiced circumcision. Egyptian culture, in particular, was very fastidious about cleanliness, and Arabic culture also has traditions of ritual washing.
Basic cleanliness was easier in ancient times than sterile operations, so I still doubt circumcision had significant health benefits in the ancient world, even if it may today.