3 ms·

That's not a bad idea, but how does liability play out on a defective test, or a test used in a manner other than directed? Would you bet the rest of your life

That's not a bad idea, but how does liability play out on a defective test, or a test used in a manner other than directed? Would you bet the rest of your life on a casual test like that?

Mirioron 7y ago
>Would you bet the rest of your life on a casual test like that? On an individual level, this doesn't guarantee much, but on a population level this could provide a huge benefit. You yourself might not feel confident based on the test, but it would likely severely limit the spread of STDs (as long as treatment is available and accessible).
- gizmo686 7y ago
  Even if treatment isn't available. The main benifit of a bed-side test isn't that it informs the person who is infected. It is that it informs the person who is not infected. Currently, most people who ask about STD status just take their partners word. Maybe a particuarly paranoid person will ask to see actual lab results, which could reasonably be months or years old at best (how often do you expect people to get tested?) or maliciously forged at worst (hopefully rare enough to be irrelevant at the population level). With a bedside test, you get up to date information (subject to the quality of the test) on if you are about to get exposed, and can avoid the exposure if necessary. There is still the cultural issue of needing to test your partner before an interaction, would might come across as prohibitively offensive.
stickfigure 7y ago
Maybe? HIV transmission is not so easy; last I checked, the rough odds of transmission from a single act of unprotected vaginal sex with a HIV+ partner was around 1 in 500. If the test is 99% accurate, and your partner isn't in an obvious high risk group, it may push the odds into "less risky than other behaviors you commonly accept" territory. For point of reference, condom use only decreases the risk by a factor of 10. Possibly less: https://www.catie.ca/en/fact-sheets/prevention/condoms https://www.catie.ca/en/fact-sheets/prevention/condoms
- mozey 7y ago
  What is your source for the 1 in 500? The numbers I found on the same website indicate an even smaller risk https://www.catie.ca/en/pif/summer-2012/putting-number-it-risk-exposure-hiv https://www.catie.ca/en/pif/summer-2012/putting-number-it-ri... However, "As you can imagine, accurately tracking the number of times a person is exposed to HIV is very difficult".
  - stickfigure 7y ago
    I don't recall; the numbers on Catie (~1 in 1250) are more modern and certainly a better estimate. Either way, you only have to add a few more digits of risk mitigation and you're more likely to die in a car accident. A test that had even a 1% false negative rate would cover most of that ground.
- word-reader 7y ago
  In developed countries most HIV transmission is due to anal sex between men who have sex with men, where the odds of transmission per single act are more like 1 in 30. The transmission is much more heterosexual in Africa however, where most of this resistance is happening. [1] I'm kind of confused about the sexual practices that could cause this to happen, but I'm sure prostitution and rape (which increases transmission odds due to trauma) are involved. [1] https://www.healthline.com/health/hiv-aids/rate-global-diagnoses-msm#1 https://www.healthline.com/health/hiv-aids/rate-global-diagn...

That's not a bad idea, but how does liability play out on a defective test, or a test used in a manner other than directed? Would you bet the rest of your life on a casual test like that?

Mirioron 7y ago

>Would you bet the rest of your life on a casual test like that? On an individual level, this doesn't guarantee much, but on a population level this could provide a huge benefit. You yourself might not feel confident based on the test, but it would likely severely limit the spread of STDs (as long as treatment is available and accessible).

gizmo686 7y ago
Even if treatment isn't available. The main benifit of a bed-side test isn't that it informs the person who is infected. It is that it informs the person who is not infected. Currently, most people who ask about STD status just take their partners word. Maybe a particuarly paranoid person will ask to see actual lab results, which could reasonably be months or years old at best (how often do you expect people to get tested?) or maliciously forged at worst (hopefully rare enough to be irrelevant at the population level). With a bedside test, you get up to date information (subject to the quality of the test) on if you are about to get exposed, and can avoid the exposure if necessary. There is still the cultural issue of needing to test your partner before an interaction, would might come across as prohibitively offensive.

stickfigure 7y ago

Maybe? HIV transmission is not so easy; last I checked, the rough odds of transmission from a single act of unprotected vaginal sex with a HIV+ partner was around 1 in 500. If the test is 99% accurate, and your partner isn't in an obvious high risk group, it may push the odds into "less risky than other behaviors you commonly accept" territory. For point of reference, condom use only decreases the risk by a factor of 10. Possibly less: https://www.catie.ca/en/fact-sheets/prevention/condoms https://www.catie.ca/en/fact-sheets/prevention/condoms

mozey 7y ago
What is your source for the 1 in 500? The numbers I found on the same website indicate an even smaller risk https://www.catie.ca/en/pif/summer-2012/putting-number-it-risk-exposure-hiv https://www.catie.ca/en/pif/summer-2012/putting-number-it-ri... However, "As you can imagine, accurately tracking the number of times a person is exposed to HIV is very difficult".
- stickfigure 7y ago
  I don't recall; the numbers on Catie (~1 in 1250) are more modern and certainly a better estimate. Either way, you only have to add a few more digits of risk mitigation and you're more likely to die in a car accident. A test that had even a 1% false negative rate would cover most of that ground.
word-reader 7y ago
In developed countries most HIV transmission is due to anal sex between men who have sex with men, where the odds of transmission per single act are more like 1 in 30. The transmission is much more heterosexual in Africa however, where most of this resistance is happening. [1] I'm kind of confused about the sexual practices that could cause this to happen, but I'm sure prostitution and rape (which increases transmission odds due to trauma) are involved. [1] https://www.healthline.com/health/hiv-aids/rate-global-diagnoses-msm#1 https://www.healthline.com/health/hiv-aids/rate-global-diagn...