Just the facts please STI transmission risk

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...

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%

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???

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.

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.

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

...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?

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.

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.

 

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 :-)

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.