141–150 of 163 posts
[flagged]
Because "abstinence education" approaches have repeatedly failed to effectively address these kinds of problems while also causing immense issues with stigmatization. People are going to have sex. Public health programs have to be focused on policies that work instead of moral grandstanding.
> and results published Wednesday show it worked nearly as well in men. So not as well? Is there a biological reason for this? Also, is it typical to do such studies on single genders rather than on a mix of humans?
Receptive PIV sex has 2% transmission rate, PIA is 20%. Cis men don't have a vagina, so...
Receptive vaginal sex: 0.08% (1 transmission per 1,250 exposures)
Insertive vaginal sex: 0.04% (1 transmission per 2,500 exposures)
Receptive anal sex: 1.4% (1 transmission per 71 exposures.)
Insertive anal sex: 0.11% (1 transmission per 909 exposures)
[1] https://stanfordhealthcare.org/medical-conditions/sexual-and...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Receptive PIV sex has 2% transmission rate, PIA is 20%. Cis men don't have a vagina, so...
Your numbers are way, way off [1]. Receptive vaginal sex: 0.08% (1 transmission per 1,250 exposures) Insertive vaginal sex: 0.04% (1 transmission per 2,500 exposures) Receptive anal sex: 1.4% (1 transmission per 71 exposures.) Insertive anal sex: 0.11% (1 transmission per 909 exposures) [1] https://stanfordhealthcare.org/medical-conditions/sexual-and...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes the medicine is worse than the disease. Who says it is your problem? If you choose to be celibate, no one is stopping you.
Yes, and a ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. No one is stopping you from being celibate or monogamous if you so choose. But that changes noting about the logic of the situation. It is impossible to avoid cause and effect: Celibacy = 100% success against STIs Non-monogamy = 79.85% Chance of catching an STI (Using numbers from the NYC STD CENTER) Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and a ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. No one is stopping you from being celibate or monogamous if you so choose. But that changes noting about the logic of the situation. It is impossible to avoid cause and effect: Celibacy = 100% success against STIs Non-monogamy = 79.85% Chance of catching an STI (Using numbers from the NYC STD CENTER) Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Who is making this your problem?
As mentioned above we already have a 100% effective solution. Problem == solved, however the solution is unacceptable to our modern society. The fact that people balk at the idea shows that they care more about base desires than their own health then turn around and demand that someone else fixes their mistake.
I mean for goodness sake, we are decriminalizing knowingly infecting other people. That's the opposite of helping. How can someone give informed consent if their partner is allowed to lie about their condition?
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/new-california-law-r...
Don't want lung cancer then don't smoke. Don't want STIs then don't have promiscuous sex.
It literally cannot be easier to understand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who is making this your problem?
It's not my problem I am merely volunteering an alternative view point in a public form (unless my tax dollars are paying for it then it is my problem). As mentioned above we already have a 100% effective solution. Problem == solved, however the solution is unacceptable to our modern society. The fact that people balk at the idea shows that they care more about base desires than their own health then turn around and…
People understand that sex carries a risk of STI, and that smoking carries a risk of lung cancer.
Who is demanding someone else fix their mistake? And why do you find this offensive?
Drug researchers and pharma companies are not being pressed ganged into servitude to develop cures. They are happily developing products to sell.
Does it bother you that people want to have promiscuous sex and be free of STIs? If so, why?
Here's a talk by someone from Gilead from a few years ago about how it works.[1] Back then they were still testing on animals. It's amazing that a small-molecule drug can be that effective for six months. It's not a vaccine. It doesn't stimulate the immune system. Completely different mechanism. It's not a slow-release implanted thing, either. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hmjn_7TeFUA
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because there's nothing the kids can be doing that won't wait for that. I feel you don't have young kids then. Jumping on you, bleeding, having a nightmare, making possibly-chocking-sounds, running away with your pills, vomiting on the floor, etc. will definitely take priority over whatever you thought you were going to do after waking up. And that doesn't even touch on people with executive functions issues. Or th…
Do you miss urinating? Drinking water instead of dying? It's literally all the same thing. I wake up. I do wake up stuff . If there's some disturbance, some emergency, I still have to go to the bathroom, drink, and yes take vitamins eventually. It's insanely simple beyond all belief. You just need to form a habit, that's all. "Take vitamins when first drinking water in the morning", or coffee, or whatever. Done. Done…
You gotta pee? You __know__ you have to pee, unless you automatically relieve yourself, and if that's the case, that's quite abnormal.
I feel like this is one of those situations where you need to realize that some people - and on this issue, the research says *most people* are not like you. They are different. It really, truly can be as simple as that. Recognizing that people are different and have different needs and struggles is difficult for a lot of people, but still very important.
Think of it like ADHD. The solution for a person with ADHD is not "just use more alarms" or "just get good".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not vitamins but vrious meds in my case. And a very chaotic lifestyle at times. The meds are always next to bed, and a pouch with meds for when I travel, plus a set of them in my backpack in case I sleep out of home. When I was in a relationship and we lived separately, I had two sets - one on my place, another in my gf’s place. It’s a bit like “how do you manage to brush your teeth daily if you have a chaotic routin…
> It’s a bit like “how do you manage to brush your teeth daily if you have a chaotic routine”. That doesn't move me away from my hunch that the jab is more convenient for many. Studies show that around 30% of people faily to brush the recommended twice a day.
As you say though, the shot may not be everyone's preference, but it will be great for many.
[0] https://www.ada.org/resources/research/health-policy-institu...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HIV has heavily…gendered outcomes. Others have mentioned infection rates, there’s also sheer exposure rates to consider. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv-data/nhss/estimated-hiv-incidence-an...
This varies between countries. In South Africa, the country with the largest HIV positive population, women have double the HIV incidence of men. https://sph.brown.edu/news/2024-11-07/south-africa-hiv-obste...
The OP article covered Mexico which remains closer to the US in outcomes being heavily male-gendered.
https://www.unaids.org/en/regionscountries/countries/mexico
https://www.statista.com/statistics/941203/distribution-indi...