3 ms·

> Second best? Are you considering PrEP? Because that has the significant downside of being very expensive PrEP is not very expensive. In th US, in fact, almos

> Second best? Are you considering PrEP? Because that has the significant downside of being very expensive PrEP is not very expensive. In th US, in fact, almost everyone is able to get it for free. > as well as a few side effects, some of which can be significant The side effects are incredibly rare, except for people just starting a regime, when they may experience mild symptoms. > Abstaining has the significant downside of not having sex Abstinence isn't considered a means of prevention because telling people "be abstinent" doesn't work. We have the data to prove it.

wahern 8y ago
> Abstinence isn't considered a means of prevention because telling people "be abstinent" doesn't work. We have the data to prove it. Huh? There is evidence that abstinence-only works better than nothing. See, e.g., https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/382798 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/... The model-estimated probability of ever having sexual intercourse by the 24-month follow-up was 33.5% in the abstinence-only intervention and 48.5% in the control group. Fewer abstinence-only intervention participants (20.6%) than control participants (29.0%) reported having coitus in the previous 3 months during the follow-up period (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.99). And condoms have a failure rate, too, both in actual use and in adherence. Abstinence-only sucks because it has comparatively poor efficacy, and because teaching abstinence is not mutually exclusive with other approaches. There is no pre-programmed amount of sex people have to have. Promiscuity in the U.S. is dramatically lower today than it was 30 or 40 years ago.