Just the facts please STI transmission risk

[kerrixoxo 33719]

If you don't want to start a discussion, you should probably do your own research and critically read what you find because numbers will vary depending on where you receive your information.

 

 

Good luck!

[oldblueeyez 15475]

I'm kind of guessing that you're attached and you don't want to transmit anything to your partner, which is respectable (been there done that). Being attached prevented me from doing things I love to do and it's liberating to be single. Wrap it up and learn to love it that way: no BB fellatio and no cunnilingus and even no kissing.

 

If you're single, then hey, forget the numbers. What are your chances of eating pacific seafood containing Fukushima radiation? Eating meat with PCBs? Living in an older house with asbestos? Etc., etc. Wrap it up for the main event and learn to live with the odds.

[manitoba 2758]

As soon as anyone says risk is low medium or high without saying what range of transmission rates are being used to govern the categories is making a subjective opinion of the rate.

 

Is 1% or 10%or 25% a low or a medium or a high rate? Depends on your own individual risk tolerance but yet posters above say that this categorization is not subjective.

 

Personally I would rather have the actual numbers and make my own determination if that is a high or a low risk or not.

 

As for the links provided they give some raw numbers on transmission. i.e. how many people got the disease not how many acts did it take to achieve that number of transmissions.

 

They also gove some risk factors without actually stating what the rate of transmission is of infection for the activity.

 

And the two samples of HIV transmission rate simply are not statistically significant enough to make any determination.

 

And for the record, I am single and unattached. I always play safe. I really doubt if knowing the actual numbers will change that because in some cases the consequences of getting some of the infections are simply more than I want to pay in any case.

 

However as a numbers guy, I want to know the numbers, not some public health officials subjective assessment of the risk.

 

I have know several public health types, they can be some of the most morally judgemental people around while hiding behind claims of being medicinally neutral.

[oldblueeyez 15475]

Look, the majority of reputable providers are just as concerned about their health as you are of yours. I'd posit that hobbying is safer than picking up at bars, dating sites, grocery stores, whatever. Getting HIV from oarl sex, whether giving or receiving, is minimal; trust me, I've been doing this for 25 years and every time I go to the STD clinic I come up clean, even for minor bacterial things. I've been eating professional pssuy from the very beginning.

[kerrixoxo 33719]

As soon as anyone says risk is low medium or high without saying what range of transmission rates are being used to govern the categories is making a subjective opinion of the rate.

 

Is 1% or 10%or 25% a low or a medium or a high rate? Depends on your own individual risk tolerance but yet posters above say that this categorization is not subjective.

 

Personally I would rather have the actual numbers and make my own determination if that is a high or a low risk or not.

 

As for the links provided they give some raw numbers on transmission. i.e. how many people got the disease not how many acts did it take to achieve that number of transmissions.

 

They also gove some risk factors without actually stating what the rate of transmission is of infection for the activity.

 

And the two samples of HIV transmission rate simply are not statistically significant enough to make any determination.

 

And for the record, I am single and unattached. I always play safe. I really doubt if knowing the actual numbers will change that because in some cases the consequences of getting some of the infections are simply more than I want to pay in any case.

 

However as a numbers guy, I want to know the numbers, not some public health officials subjective assessment of the risk.

 

I have know several public health types, they can be some of the most morally judgemental people around while hiding behind claims of being medicinally neutral.

 

Sounds like you need to do your own research because this looks like it is turning into a discussion. ;)

 

Also, it's probably best you do your own research and read it critically (as you have done here) since it sounds like you already know what you are looking for--you just need to go find it :)

[Helena D'Orville 33237]

Just the facts?

 

It just takes ONE TIME, and then you are s-c-r-e-w-e-d!

 

But not in a good way...

[Ice4fun 78407]

Just to put a wrench in your thought process, here's a link.

 

http://metro.co.uk/2014/12/16/pensioners-told-take-condoms-after-cruise-ships-swept-with-stds-4988913/

 

Shit... just read that article and they are referencing people over 50 as Old Age Pensioners.... I am 54 and never think of myself in term of being an old age pensioner lolol.... I guess I am older than I think I am.

 

 

 

Sent from my Passport using Tapatalk

[oldblueeyez 15475]

I was doing my headline surfing and came across this. Here's another wrench

for ya, sorry!

 

Aggressive Form of HIV Uncovered in Cuba

[fortunateone 156618]

Just to put a wrench in your thought process, here's a link.

 

http://metro.co.uk/2014/12/16/pensioners-told-take-condoms-after-cruise-ships-swept-with-stds-4988913/

 

 

Oh, that's funny, I didn't actually see that part of his post re: the over 60s lol.

 

Yes, it has been in the news a couple of times over the years that this is a growing population for transmission of STIs, but significantly, HIV/Aids as well

 

The other high report group is 14 to 21, who then grow up to be undiagnosed adults spreading stds to other undiagnosed adults.

 

Anyway, the numbers don't lie, if someone has an STI, and you have unprotected activities (damn censorship words) then you have a 100% 'chance' of contracting what they have in that one activity/encounter.

 

It will continue to be 100% chance no matter how many times you repeat with that person, it will be 100% with one, two, three, or 100 times. That is what your risk always is, you can't statisticize your way out of this by saying well, there is a case where only 10% of the encounters resulted in HIV. For those 30 women, their risk and results were 100%

[Helena D'Orville 33237]

It seems to me that starting a thread is starting a discussion. If not why starting a thread?

 

Then what is this discussion/thread about, exactly?

 

We are adults and must act in a responsible way, especially when other people's health, and even life, are at stake. Facts and numbers have nothing to do with us being conscious of that, and acting responsibly.

 

I have to say that this thread not only puzzles me, but I really wonder what Manitoba's purpose was when he started it. Because we are a helpful community, and he got answers from members, answers that he probably already knew because he seems to be well informed about the topic...

 

So, what is this thread about, really???

[FunAdventures 4501]

This thread is supposed to be about what the risks are.

 

Not opinions about whether they are worth it.

 

I am a numbers gal. I know exactly what he's looking for, and I don't think it exists. Numbers are great. Easy to make decisions with. Easy to learn from. Easy to read. Much better that someone's opinion on whether something is high, medium, or low. Though personally I hate percentages. They can be so misleading. I need real numbers.

(Ie Take a look at one house and 3/4 people infected = 75%

Vs, expand that population source to include the whole block and suddenly it's 3/~100 = 3%.

Same amount of people infected, in the same demographic, very different percentages...

Percentages suck without knowing the numbers behind them)

 

He wants to find good sources of information. That's it. That should be commendable, and I'm glad he brought it up, as the information that is out there is terrible. Not very helpful at all, it is all qualitative, and to numbers people, qualitative data is just a question waiting to be answered. And finding good sources, is terribly difficult via google, especially for a topic like this. I see nothing wrong with asking questions and looking for answers. Although I have come to the conclusion that they just don't have the numbers. Everything out there is qualitative. I don't think quantitative data exists.

 

I know there isn't for HPV. They've literally given up on trying. In fact most doctors will tell patients there is no need to disclose that they have it because it is just so common (at least for the low risk strains). I know this because I was helping a friend out and he was told he never had to tell anyone. By a few doctors. Shocking to me, but more shocking was how little they knew in terms of transmission risks, etc. They could tell us nothing about anything we asked about, except it should go away within 2 years. They did not know if that meant it could still be transmitted after 2 years, just that he should be clear of it by then. We spoke with multiple doctors, the sex clinic, spent countless hours online, even scoured through scientific journals... Never found a single source of good information. Most people, do not know. It is that simple.

 

I don't think there is a database where they actually log any numbers. Where they can report when a new patient becomes infected. Where they can log information such as relationship status, how frequent they have sex, and how often. Even if they did, there is no way that all that information would be given accurately.

 

I also don't think any University anywhere would allow a study on the events you want to know about. Ie, how many times does patient A (uninfected) have to sleep with patient B (infected), before patient A becomes infected. Is patient A now immediately 'contagious'? Is this result repeatable? etc etc etc etc....

 

I assume that the data they do have, is derived in correlation with the pharmaceutical side of things. It's easy to track how much medication is sold for a certain illness, vs how many people go into the doctor.

 

That or via surveys.. which has so many flaws in it that I cringe when I think about it.

[manitoba 2758]

I was doing my headline surfing and came across this. Here's another wrench

for ya, sorry!

 

Aggressive Form of HIV Uncovered in Cuba

 

All that says is that the cruse ships have been "swept" with SDI's.

 

No numbers but just another example of a scare tactic with no numbers or real facts to support the contention that the ships have been "swept"

[FunAdventures 4501]

You have already assumed that health officials stats are skewed by their subjective definition of what is risky or not.

My question to you then is this. How do you know this? That their stats are skewed

BTW how do you know that health officials haven't contracted out their research to statisticians

 

RG

 

Because it is a subjective qualitative assessment. Someone, somewhere, had to come up with what qualifies as high, moderate, and low. Someone, somewhere, made a decision about it's risk. Any sort of definition like this, especially without defining what that classification means, is subjective. Irregardless of who writes or claims it. It is someone's opinion. That is it.

 

Many people misuse stats, in every profession. Science is terrible for it, because the people who are writing are not statisticians, or they only want to publish the information that supports their conclusions. Stats are misleading. I love the example that Manitoba posted (a few posts back) about the article in Winnipeg. 50% increase! Sounds incredible! Definitely headline worthy. Saying that there is now 60 people, instead of 40 in a population of 700,000 is far less dramatic.

[Ice4fun 78407]

This is an interesting thread... I would have thought that any thread that got people thinking about and discussing their responsibility for educating themselves on STI's would be good. Thanks for starting it.

 

Just my Opinion

 

Sent from my Passport using Tapatalk

[fortunateone 156618]

Because it is a subjective qualitative assessment. Someone, somewhere, had to come up with what qualifies as high, moderate, and low. Someone, somewhere, made a decision about it's risk. Any sort of definition like this, especially without defining what that classification means, is subjective. Irregardless of who writes or claims it. It is someone's opinion. That is it.

 

Many people misuse stats, in every profession. Science is terrible for it, because the people who are writing are not statisticians, or they only want to publish the information that supports their conclusions. Stats are misleading. I love the example that Manitoba posted (a few posts back) about the article in Winnipeg. 50% increase! Sounds incredible! Definitely headline worthy. Saying that there is now 60 people, instead of 40 in a population of 700,000 is far less dramatic.

 

 

imo, they come up with those levels based on numbers, and info given to them from people who come in to be tested and so on. And some STDs are reportable, like syphilis, that is why they know if something has gone up from number X to number Y

 

And misuse of stats, I totally agree. I have not seen one high risk apologist not try to use the .01% or 10% etc that they do find in some studies in order to excuse themselves doing higher risk activity.

 

And again, to the OP, you cannot deny that if you engage in unprotected sex with someone who has an STD, that the risk statistic is 100%.. We are talking about risk level, and percentages. And you have zero risk doing that with someone who does not have an STD, and 100% risk if they do.

 

That is like saying the difference between stepping out in front of a bus, and denying that the risk of getting hit is 100%. it is 100% risk.

 

 

but here are some numbers. http://www.cfenet.ubc.ca/news/releases/study-finds-aids-incidence-and-related-deaths-drastically-decreasing-bc-with-access

[kerrixoxo 33719]

But back to the original point, I say doing your own research is best because technically, nothing in this world is actually truly objective. And imo discussion is a discussion regardless of what you want that discussion to be about. If you want to control the discussion and where it leads, best to just converse with yourself and like I said, do your own research (lol).

[oldblueeyez 15475]

[FunAdventures 4501]

...imo, they come up with those levels based on numbers, and info given to them from people who come in to be tested and so on. And some STDs are reportable, like syphilis, that is why they know if something has gone up from number X to number Y

...

 

Exactly! And those are the numbers we want. :-) Please help us find them?

[Brad 49548]

When having any discussion, the fairest thing to do is try to understand the spirit of what a person is saying or asking...not focus on a side sentence or skew things.

 

I'm not sure why we can't see that the spirit of what the OP is asking is whether anyone knows what the numerical chance is of catching a given STI, and why--on a discussion board that likes to pride itself on its friendliness--we want to give someone such a hard time for asking a question or even in some cases act like it's offensive to have done so.

 

Now, it may very well be those numbers don't reliably exist, in which case that is a fair response.

 

But to just say he should do his own research or that we are not professionals seems...unfair. I mean, is it so unrealistic to think some people on this board may have talked with professionals or come across some useful numbers? People ask questions on this site all the time about topics we aren't professionals on, and often someone is able to point to information.

 

I mean, we all know there is a risk to sex. And we all know that the only way to be 100% safe is abstinence. But why is it seemingly wrong to want to knows the odds of the risk?

 

I mean, I could say there is "100%" risk in me driving because there's always a chance I'd get into an accident. But I know the risk is small enough that, given the benefits of driving, I'm willing to do so. And though some places have more accidents than others, and even though it certainly only takes driving once to get in an accident, there is easily accessible data out there to tell me the odds and help me make an informed decision.

 

Simply saying there's risk in terms of something bad could happen doesn't really help a person decide how to act. Whether I carefully walk across a sidewalk or jump into the middle of a highway at night wearing dark clothes, I have a chance of being hit by a truck. But since I have a good idea of the odds of an accident happening with each, I'm able to decide that I'm willing to risk the one but not the other.

 

If I can buy a lottery ticket for one draw where I have a 1 in 10 chance of winning or a different draw where I have a 1 in a billion chance of winning, knowing the odds helps me decide if I want to spend any cash buying a ticket. Yes, I could win either way but are we really going to pretend that knowing the odds isn't useful in making a decision?

 

All aspects of life are like this. In all things we decide whether something is too risky for ourselves or not. Wanting to know the degree of risk or chances of something happening isn't an unreasonable desire. Now, whether those numbers reliably exist for STI's...well, isn't that a discussion worth having?

[FunAdventures 4501]

But the reason they tend to not provide those numbers is because using these numbers leads to high risk behaviour, and misleading assumptions, and false sense of security.

 

...

 

Because anything else, I simply feel that people use numbers to make excuses for doing high risk behaviour on activities that most experts/researchers/professionals are indicating are high risk. Just because it is 'only' 10% if you used numbers, and something else is 5% doesn't mean it is an acceptable thing to do

 

I completely understand your concern. But nobody here is looking for an excuse to have unsafe sex. We are just trying to educate ourselves.

 

And you assume that the values are low. To me, high risk would probably fall in the greater than 80% range, moderate risk would be 60-80 and low would be less than 60. Aren't you at all curious as to what it truly is? Maybe you are lowballing what they mean by low, medium, high. And that's the point. We don't know what they mean. Maybe we aren't cautious enough? Complacency can be extremely dangerous.

 

Also, for me, asking questions about the safety of sex in a place where there are a lot of people who know about sex, seems like a good idea to me. Health professionals or not.

[fortunateone 156618]

I completely understand your concern. But nobody here is looking for an excuse to have unsafe sex. We are just trying to educate ourselves.

 

And you assume that the values are low. To me, high risk would probably fall in the greater than 80% range, moderate risk would be 60-80 and low would be less than 60. Aren't you at all curious as to what it truly is? Maybe you are lowballing what they mean by low, medium, high. And that's the point. We don't know what they mean. Maybe we aren't cautious enough? Complacency can be extremely dangerous.

 

Also, for me, asking questions about the safety of sex in a place where there are a lot of people who know about sex, seems like a good idea to me. Health professionals or not.

 

 

 

But to me that means people looking for an excuse, again, because if 80% is high, and 10% is low, does that mean go ahead and do the low risk activity now that they have a specific number to go with it? Isn't the level the same i.e. low is low, and high is high, with or without an actual number.

 

And the main thing is, people are getting the information, they are just bypassing the info because it doesn't come with an exact figure? And to them that makes sense?

 

In other words, how will an exact number make these facts any different, or any more serious, or any more valid when they are already being told something is high risk? is it less high risk if the rate is 50% versus their personal cutoff number of 80%. Does it make it less valid if the conditions are based on 50% being reported as 'high', and not the 80% that they personally consider 'high'. and if something is regarded low risk, but they get the STD anyway from doing it, do they get mad at the charts for presenting something as 'safe' when it wasn't? (while denying that low risk is not no risk, of course).

 

lol

 

i mean it can be broken down into a number of ways, but my main question would come back around to; why isn't the fact that the various sites tracking the research into activities categorize some of them as being 'high' risk enough information for anyone? High is high, low is low. These charts do not come without additional information, they list the conditions of the activity, then list the specific STDs that are known to be transmitted due to those activities, and rate them according to how easily and how often these activities result in those stds.

 

The usefulness of the charting is not diminished by the lack of percentages or numbers per 100,000. And no health expert, short of simply exposing non infected people to infected people on a constant and regular basis, is going to be realistically able to tell how many times any specific activity is needed in order to infect another person. Because everyone is different, as mentioned, some get it some do not. Some have it and it is easily transmitted, others have it and it is not transmitting easily, i'm sure.

 

10 different people with the same STDs, could do the same activity with one person over a period of time, that person may or may not contract something from each of them, or none of them. There are no stats, no numbers, no research that is ever going to give this kind of information in a meaningful way imo.

 

What they can do is say among the people who have been tested, and report what activity they did, then this happened to them. We don't see the ones who have not been tested. We don't see the ones who did the same activity and got nothing. in other words, we do not get a full sample in order to actually present statistics.

[FunAdventures 4501]

 

i mean it can be broken down into a number of ways, but my main question would come back around to; why isn't the fact that the various sites tracking the research into activities categorize some of them as being 'high' risk enough information for anyone? High is high, low is low.

 

Agreed. Your whole post makes perfect sense. Very well written, with valid points.

 

I will just try to answer your main question though. For most people I think that is enough information. Knowing if something is good or bad, high or low, right or wrong, is enough. I'd say the majority of people fall into this category. And then there are the few people, like me (and Manitoba I assume), who continuously question what these terms mean. High to you, may not be high to me, and vice versa. For anything. Not just this topic.

 

I call myself analytical. I love to formulate my own opinions on things, and I question everything that people tell me (well actually not everything as people tend to hate to be questioned). I love to know why. 'Why' is a question that drives those closest to me bonkers. Haha.

 

It's just the way I am wired.. I think it's very much like the introverted vs extroverted topic. Nothing wrong with either way, just different.

 

Anyways... I do feel like this thread has been hijacked (sorry OP)... If there is any data that people want to add, we should get back to it :-)

[manitoba 2758]

....

 

And again, to the OP, you cannot deny that if you engage in unprotected sex with someone who has an STD, that the risk statistic is 100%.. We are talking about risk level, and percentages. And you have zero risk doing that with someone who does not have an STD, and 100% risk if they do.

 

....

 

I cannot argue that the risk of getting an STI from someone who doesn't have one is zero but do argue that the risk of getting one from someone who has one is 100% in the case of unprotected activities.

 

Think about it, to catch any infection from someone you need to pass sufficient quantities of the bacteria or virus causing the infection that your immune system cannot cope with it and that does not always happen with any activity known to transmit the bacteria or virus.

 

If it did then when normal infections like the flu or common cold would automatically infect 100% of the population. One major bacteria/virus transmitting vector is money and everyone handles it.

 

Even stepping in front of a bus is not 100%, it may stop or swerve.

[Brad 49548]

But to me that means people looking for an excuse, again, because if 80% is high, and 10% is low, does that mean go ahead and do the low risk activity now that they have a specific number to go with it? ...

 

my main question would come back around to; why isn't the fact that the various sites tracking the research into activities categorize some of them as being 'high' risk enough information for anyone? High is high, low is low.

 

Fair questions, and I think I see what you are trying to say.

 

But consider, some people want the facts so they can better make a safer, informed decision -- not so they can pretend that there is no risk or take it as permission to act however they want. Perhaps think of it a different way: isn't it just as likely a person would interpret the words "low risk" to mean it's safe enough to act and then blame those charts if they get infected? Whereas if they had been told some sort of numerical rate they might have considered that too risky for them. It all depends on the person. One person might go hand-gliding because the risk is "low" but if you told them there was a 1 in 1000 chance of an accident they'd say "no way!" :)

 

You say "high means high" and "low means low" but that's just what some of us aren't sure we understand. What does high mean? One person might argue you have a high risk of death flying because there's dozens of plane accidents a year, while another person would say flying is a low risk form of travel because of how often planes don't crash. Or maybe it's a medium risk, because accidents happen less often than with cars but more often than not traveling at all. Using high/low is useful only if there's some information or context to explain what constitutes each or what the bar is to decide the difference between one vs the other.

 

I'm truly not trying to be difficult, and hope that at least explains why such terms--in isolation--leave some of us wanting more.

[VedaSloan 119179]

This is ridiculous.

 

You want to stay safe? Don't have sex.

 

You want to take reasonable precautions to prevent transmission of something? Assume everyone has an STI and protect yourself accordingly.

 

The end.