Hiv/Aids

[Godwynn]

Before today I thought this was the scourge of the youth in today's society. When I came across this graph which I believe I am reading correctly.

Estimated per act risk for acquisition of HIV by exposure route (without condom):

Insertive intercourse: 1/2,000
Receptive intercourse: 1/1,000
Blood Transfusion: 9/10
Childbirth: 2.5/10
Insertive Oral intercourse: 1/20,000

Remember this is without a condom. I am reading that graph correctly? Is the chance to catch HIV really that low through sexual acts?

 

[Nobody]

Just wondering do you have back door entry numbers? and is Sharing a needle 100%?

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

Just wondering do you have back door entry numbers? and is Sharing a needle 100%?

Moderator Action: Post removed.

Please keep the discussion at a civil level, without the need for that type of language / imagery.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Truronian]

Looking at the graphs sources, I'm not sure those statistics have been interpreted correctly.

If they have though, they are significantly lower than I expected.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Is it 1/2000 if you are having sex with someone who has HIV, or just having sex in general? I can't imagine that unprotected sex with an HIV positive partner results in getting HIV only .05% of the time, or AIDS would never have spread.

 

[Gingerbread Man]

Just wondering do you have back door entry numbers? and is Sharing a needle 100%?

Following the link given in the OP:

Receptive anal intercourse with no condom: 50 per 10000 (i.e. 1 in 200)
Needle Sharing for injection drug use: 67 per 10000

 

[Ecclesiastes]

it all sounds about rite to me, STDs spreadin like crazy is just propoganda, it IS a problem, but not one nearly as big as people are making it out to be.

 

[Loki cdn]

it all sounds about rite to me, STDs spreadin like crazy is just propoganda, it IS a problem, but not one nearly as big as people are making it out to be.

Depends on where you live. In many parts of the third world, an*! intercourse is used as a method of birth control by women who don't want to become pregnant.

 

[Commie #4522]

AIDs is a big problem no matter how you look at it.

 

[Grisu]

Back door entry? Ya mean edited: <anal sex>? I think its the equal of screwin without a condom... in ur mind whats the diffrence... Besides the holes?

nope, the risk is much bigger for the 'receiving' partner in anal intercourse. IIRC it's mainly because it often results in tiny injuries.

the numbers sound about right to me, after all 1/1000 death sentance is still an awful risk to take...

 

[StarWorms]

As someone once told someone who told me: The front entrance is as tough as old boots. The back entry isn't. HIV is caught when body fluids mix and there's a higher risk of bleeding or something.

I guess that must mean that it's easier for a woman to catch HIV from a man than it is for a man to catch HIV from a woman

 

[soul_warrior]

seems about right.
i still would not bet my life on a 20000 to 1 odds.
sorry, im just too conservative there.

 

[Dragonlord]

I read the graph the same way, but I don't believe the numbers. This is Wikipedia, after all, who knows who screwed with the numbers?

I can't believe that the risk of unprotected vaginal sex for a man is only 0.05% for an infected partner... if that were true, why take precautions at all? At least in Europe, the probability of encountering an HIV-positive woman is low anyway... then it would have to be one who doesn't know she's positive or doesn't take precautions regardless... and even then, only 0.05% infection risk?
I take higher risks than that every time I ride my motorcycle!

So no, I don't believe those numbers...

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Is it 1/2000 if you are having sex with someone who has HIV, or just having sex in general? I can't imagine that unprotected sex with an HIV positive partner results in getting HIV only .05% of the time, or AIDS would never have spread.

1/2000 (or 1/1000) per "exposure" with someone who has HIV.
0 chance per exposure with someone who hasn't.

If you have a regular sexual partner who has AIDS, and whom you have unprotected sex with, then your chances of contracting AIDS get high pretty quickly.

 

[Nobody]

On tv most aids victims are junkies or homosexual men. I would think bum sex would be fairly safe. Not having bumsexed before but i would think the man milk would simply sit their till craped out not get into the bloodstream. I mean bums are designed to give not receive, and i dont think aids infected poo would have a good chance of climbing into the penis and giving aids.

I surpose tearing would be a issue. But i assume its the bum that tears not the penis, (if its the penis that tears then gay men are very sick). Even then i can see ripped bum blood working its up back up the penis to infect the penatrator.

 

[StarWorms]

I read the graph the same way, but I don't believe the numbers. This is Wikipedia, after all, who knows who screwed with the numbers?

I can't believe that the risk of unprotected vaginal sex for a man is only 0.05% for an infected partner... if that were true, why take precautions at all? At least in Europe, the probability of encountering an HIV-positive woman is low anyway... then it would have to be one who doesn't know she's positive or doesn't take precautions regardless... and even then, only 0.05% infection risk?
I take higher risks than that every time I ride my motorcycle!

So no, I don't believe those numbers...

There are references next to each number. These link to where the figures came from.

 

[Gingerbread Man]

Just as a warning to the people talking in this thread: just say it. No euphemisms. That's right, use the correct term.

Now, everybody, say "anal sex". Say it again. "ANAL SEX!".

Good. Now we can talk on the topic without having to use such terms as "backdoor entry", "put one's donger in a blowhole", "@n@1 secks", "sodoming someone", or some other awkward substitute.

Now, onto the discussion.

On tv most aids victims are junkies or homosexual men. I would think bum sex would be fairly safe. Not having bumsexed before but i would think the man milk would simply sit their till craped out not get into the bloodstream. I mean bums are designed to give not receive, and i dont think aids infected poo would have a good chance of climbing into the penis and giving aids.

I surpose tearing would be a issue. But i assume its the bum that tears not the penis, (if its the penis that tears then gay men are very sick). Even then i can see ripped bum blood working its up back up the penis to infect the penatrator.

Receptive Anal Sex is essentially the most risky form of sex when unprotected with a casual partner (protected and with a committed partner is rather different). The anal walls can be teared more easily than other orifices used for sex, and absorb water and other fluids much more actively.

On the other hand, the penetrative partner is very rarely infected by an infected receptive partner. Again, assuming all is uncommitted, unprotected, etc. The difference in safety for unprotected anal sex when comparing receptive and penetrative is in orders of magnitude.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Just as a warning to the people talking in this thread: just say it. No euphemisms. That's right, use the correct term.

Good suggestion. Some of the euphemisms in this thread have been not only tasteless, but also just serve to confuse matters. (I mean, I think I know what nobody is trying to say, but I'm not certain I've understood him correctly)

Regarding the transference rates for unprotected vaginal and oral intercourse, remember that for a significant periods it was thought that AIDS couldn't be transferred these ways. We now know it isn't a "gay-only disease", but anal sex is statistically clearly the most likely sexual activity to transfer HIV.

 

[warmonger]

As some one who has worked on the fringes of HIV Aids and its treatment, I can confirm that those figures are broadly in line with most sources. This is one reason why AIDS hasn't caused even more devastation than it has already. It is actually quite difficult to catch.

The numbers for Hepatitis B are a order of magnitude higher - that is 10 times more infective - and Hep B is just as deadly as HIV just slower. It never gets a mention because it is not an issue in Western countries because we have been vaccinating against it for 2 generations.

 

[Bad Player]

According to wikipedia many people clear Hep B. However people don't clear HIV (and it kills all it infects). So HIV is deadlier than Hep B.