7 ms·

You know what would be a fantastic sub-market for this? Bars and clubs in college towns. Regardless of whether you believe 1-nighters are moral or not, they're

You know what would be a fantastic sub-market for this? Bars and clubs in college towns. Regardless of whether you believe 1-nighters are moral or not, they're going to keep happening. Might as well promote safety and reduce the spread of STIs. Edit: I don't mean this should be an alternative to traditional protection. It just adds another layer of certainty.

raganwald 15y ago
I speculate it would do more harm than good. Safe sex practices are important even if you have a means of lowering the risk of HIV.
- wisty 15y ago
  It's a risk. But the same could be said for condoms in nightclubs. Generally, the best public safety campaigns work are "defense in depth". You discourage sex in general, discourage unsafe sex, discourage casual sex, discourage polygamy, provide condoms, and encourage tests. It all generally works, as long as you don't treat any of it as a magic bullet. It's the extremists who either think a) abstinence is the only protection; or b) causal sex is fine as long as you take precautions; who cause problems, as they tend to discourage defense in depth. So ideally, they would have an ambiguously enthusiastic "Over 90% accurate!" blurb, and be packaged with a condom or two.
  - mike-cardwell 15y ago
    "causal sex is fine as long as you take precautions" is an "extremist" view?
- mike-cardwell 15y ago
  Isn't this the same line of reasoning that the Catholic church uses to try to prevent the spread of condoms in certain parts of the World?
  - raganwald 15y ago
    Do your research. At least three different companies produce and distribute a Vatican-approved condom under license. Its innovative latex-derivative material has been engineered under Church supervision to block the HIV virus while allowing sperm to pass unhindered. UPDATE: Folks this is indeed one of the oldest jokes ever told. I’m not surprised nobody is laughing, my ability to tell a joke it matched only by my ability to compose rhyming couplets extemporaneously. But I am surprised nobody identified it as such.
    - derleth 15y ago
      > Its innovative latex-derivative material has been engineered under Church supervision to block the HIV virus while allowing sperm to pass unhindered. This is either a joke or the stupidest thing I've heard all month. Anyway, the RCC does allow people to use condoms when the primary purpose is disease control and not contraception. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8148899/Pope-approves-use-of-condoms-in-fight-against-Aids.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8148899/Po...
      - raganwald 15y ago
        This is either a joke or the stupidest thing I've heard all month. Alas, this was a joke AND the stupidest thing you’ve heard all month. I will be more mindful of Poe’s Law (as suggested elsewhere) in the future.
    - dhimes 15y ago
      You have my attention, but all I have is contrary: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-vatican-reaffirms-pope-never-legitimized-condoms-in-any-circumstan/ http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-vatican-reaffirms-... Do you have a reference?
      - ScottBurson 15y ago
        While I realize that joking around is discouraged here, maybe it would be best if we didn't turn the humor detector all the way off. I thought it was a hoot, anyway.
smiler 15y ago
Except this does not test for all kinds of other STIs.
Robin_Message 15y ago
I really don't think that is a good idea. If people believe they won't get AIDS, which is the scariest STI, they'll be less likely to use protection, which will increase the spread of things like chlamydia (which has only minor side effects, like possible infertility) . Also, I bet the error rate goes up to a scary level once you have it being self-administered by drunk people.
- neutronicus 15y ago
  As a recent college student, take your paternalism and shove it. I want this.
  - Robin_Message 15y ago
    As a current university student, it's not my paternalism. It kind of sucks, doesn't it? But it's like lots of things in life: sometimes we can't have nice things because other people, who are much less mature and sensible than you, will misuse them, so nobody is allowed them. Also, "paternalism" is an irritating dog whistle. We are talking about "public health policy", which also means such sensible things as that you can't have plastic surgery done in a car garage or buy cola sweetened with lead acetate or Cyclamate.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      Condoms won't slow the spread of crabs, scabies, or the common cold. Maybe we should ban those too under your logic.
      - Robin_Message 15y ago
        I oppose making a less safe substitute available and I think how people actually act is fair game to consider. Condoms don't substitute for something equivalent that is safer (some people try to make out that they substitute for abstinence, but that is obviously not true since abstinence is obviously not equivalent). This device could equivalently substitute for condoms (actually, it's probably cheaper and more fun than condoms as long as you don't mind a small pinprick), but it's less safe. Thus my opposition.
AlexC04 15y ago
That was my first thought actually. Problem is, do you want to be the company who holds the liability of a false negative? How do you manage that risk? Otherwise, yes a wallet STD test would be a fantastic little thing to have available in "hook up spots"
araneae 15y ago
No, no no! Already up to 1/2 of new HIV infections are from people who would test negative in this test; early stage infections. This is because people who have been newly infected are about 4,000% more likely to transmit infection than those who are in late stage infection. If condom usage dropped even a small amount as a result of this test, it could considerably worsen the epidemic. From a public health perspective this could be a terrible, terrible disaster.
- Estragon 15y ago
  ...1/2 of new HIV infections are from people who would test negative in this test... I'm curious what the article means when it says "Researchers at Columbia University claim the mChip has a 100 percent detection rate." Are you sure the test is working the way you think it works? Could it be DNA-based rather than antibody-based?
  - araneae 15y ago
    Yup, I'm sure. The Nature article says it's an ELISA test. http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nm.2408.html http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nm.2408.... ELISA is an antibody test. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELISA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELISA The 100% detection refers to the detection of the antibodies, not the general detection of HIV infection.
- Shenglong 15y ago
  I am -NOT- purposing this as a mutually exclusive alternative. This should be an addition to what's already happening. No one who goes through the trouble of using this is going to say "well she doesn't have HIV, so what the hell, no condom!" If you're already practicing to be safe, you still worry about the possibility of something going wrong, and you contracting the infection anyway. With this, you can be more certain that nothing will go wrong. You would still use a condom just in case. Your argument is like saying people engaging in random sexual activity should close their eyes because not seeing warts will lead them to believe the partner doesn't have warts - which may lower then chance they use a condom. This would offer more information, and if it turns out that person is HIV positive by the test, you'd be eliminating your chances of contraction altogether.
eru 15y ago
Prepare for some lawsuits, if your tests says someone's OK but then transmits HIV.
AgentConundrum 15y ago
This segues nicely into an idea that occurred to me the other day. I was knocking around the idea of a website where you sign up with just an email and are issued a unique id, potentially with the ability to generate new ones on the fly. When you hook up with someone, you load an app on your phone or a website, and it generates a QR code. Each partner scans each others code and the website logs the encounter. At some point, someone is going to get an STD/STI. When this happens, the infected parter can go to the website and with just a few clicks, you can send a notification to your recent (for some medical definition of recent), and they'll be notified to get themselves checked. Now, the whole HIPAA compliance thing (or compliance in general, since the US isn't the only government affected here) would be a bitch and a half, and getting user adoption would be hard ("you use website.com? slut!"), but if it was safe and caught on, I could see it having a real effect on infection rates. Some really common infections (chlamydia, gonorrhea) show no symptoms in a lot of cases, so just getting that easy notification could really help people identify that they have the disease, and so they could get quicker treatment. I just wish I had the skill and finances to try it. Maybe some kid that wants to take a run at YC funding could use this as their idea?

raganwald 15y ago

I speculate it would do more harm than good. Safe sex practices are important even if you have a means of lowering the risk of HIV.

wisty 15y ago
It's a risk. But the same could be said for condoms in nightclubs. Generally, the best public safety campaigns work are "defense in depth". You discourage sex in general, discourage unsafe sex, discourage casual sex, discourage polygamy, provide condoms, and encourage tests. It all generally works, as long as you don't treat any of it as a magic bullet. It's the extremists who either think a) abstinence is the only protection; or b) causal sex is fine as long as you take precautions; who cause problems, as they tend to discourage defense in depth. So ideally, they would have an ambiguously enthusiastic "Over 90% accurate!" blurb, and be packaged with a condom or two.
- mike-cardwell 15y ago
  "causal sex is fine as long as you take precautions" is an "extremist" view?
mike-cardwell 15y ago
Isn't this the same line of reasoning that the Catholic church uses to try to prevent the spread of condoms in certain parts of the World?
- raganwald 15y ago
  Do your research. At least three different companies produce and distribute a Vatican-approved condom under license. Its innovative latex-derivative material has been engineered under Church supervision to block the HIV virus while allowing sperm to pass unhindered. UPDATE: Folks this is indeed one of the oldest jokes ever told. I’m not surprised nobody is laughing, my ability to tell a joke it matched only by my ability to compose rhyming couplets extemporaneously. But I am surprised nobody identified it as such.
  - derleth 15y ago
    > Its innovative latex-derivative material has been engineered under Church supervision to block the HIV virus while allowing sperm to pass unhindered. This is either a joke or the stupidest thing I've heard all month. Anyway, the RCC does allow people to use condoms when the primary purpose is disease control and not contraception. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8148899/Pope-approves-use-of-condoms-in-fight-against-Aids.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8148899/Po...
    - raganwald 15y ago
      This is either a joke or the stupidest thing I've heard all month. Alas, this was a joke AND the stupidest thing you’ve heard all month. I will be more mindful of Poe’s Law (as suggested elsewhere) in the future.
  - dhimes 15y ago
    You have my attention, but all I have is contrary: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-vatican-reaffirms-pope-never-legitimized-condoms-in-any-circumstan/ http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-vatican-reaffirms-... Do you have a reference?
    - ScottBurson 15y ago
      While I realize that joking around is discouraged here, maybe it would be best if we didn't turn the humor detector all the way off. I thought it was a hoot, anyway.

smiler 15y ago

Except this does not test for all kinds of other STIs.

Robin_Message 15y ago

I really don't think that is a good idea. If people believe they won't get AIDS, which is the scariest STI, they'll be less likely to use protection, which will increase the spread of things like chlamydia (which has only minor side effects, like possible infertility) . Also, I bet the error rate goes up to a scary level once you have it being self-administered by drunk people.

neutronicus 15y ago
As a recent college student, take your paternalism and shove it. I want this.
- Robin_Message 15y ago
  As a current university student, it's not my paternalism. It kind of sucks, doesn't it? But it's like lots of things in life: sometimes we can't have nice things because other people, who are much less mature and sensible than you, will misuse them, so nobody is allowed them. Also, "paternalism" is an irritating dog whistle. We are talking about "public health policy", which also means such sensible things as that you can't have plastic surgery done in a car garage or buy cola sweetened with lead acetate or Cyclamate.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    Condoms won't slow the spread of crabs, scabies, or the common cold. Maybe we should ban those too under your logic.
    - Robin_Message 15y ago
      I oppose making a less safe substitute available and I think how people actually act is fair game to consider. Condoms don't substitute for something equivalent that is safer (some people try to make out that they substitute for abstinence, but that is obviously not true since abstinence is obviously not equivalent). This device could equivalently substitute for condoms (actually, it's probably cheaper and more fun than condoms as long as you don't mind a small pinprick), but it's less safe. Thus my opposition.

AlexC04 15y ago

That was my first thought actually. Problem is, do you want to be the company who holds the liability of a false negative? How do you manage that risk? Otherwise, yes a wallet STD test would be a fantastic little thing to have available in "hook up spots"

araneae 15y ago

No, no no! Already up to 1/2 of new HIV infections are from people who would test negative in this test; early stage infections. This is because people who have been newly infected are about 4,000% more likely to transmit infection than those who are in late stage infection. If condom usage dropped even a small amount as a result of this test, it could considerably worsen the epidemic. From a public health perspective this could be a terrible, terrible disaster.

Estragon 15y ago
...1/2 of new HIV infections are from people who would test negative in this test... I'm curious what the article means when it says "Researchers at Columbia University claim the mChip has a 100 percent detection rate." Are you sure the test is working the way you think it works? Could it be DNA-based rather than antibody-based?
- araneae 15y ago
  Yup, I'm sure. The Nature article says it's an ELISA test. http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nm.2408.html http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nm.2408.... ELISA is an antibody test. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELISA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELISA The 100% detection refers to the detection of the antibodies, not the general detection of HIV infection.
Shenglong 15y ago
I am -NOT- purposing this as a mutually exclusive alternative. This should be an addition to what's already happening. No one who goes through the trouble of using this is going to say "well she doesn't have HIV, so what the hell, no condom!" If you're already practicing to be safe, you still worry about the possibility of something going wrong, and you contracting the infection anyway. With this, you can be more certain that nothing will go wrong. You would still use a condom just in case. Your argument is like saying people engaging in random sexual activity should close their eyes because not seeing warts will lead them to believe the partner doesn't have warts - which may lower then chance they use a condom. This would offer more information, and if it turns out that person is HIV positive by the test, you'd be eliminating your chances of contraction altogether.

eru 15y ago

Prepare for some lawsuits, if your tests says someone's OK but then transmits HIV.

AgentConundrum 15y ago

This segues nicely into an idea that occurred to me the other day. I was knocking around the idea of a website where you sign up with just an email and are issued a unique id, potentially with the ability to generate new ones on the fly. When you hook up with someone, you load an app on your phone or a website, and it generates a QR code. Each partner scans each others code and the website logs the encounter. At some point, someone is going to get an STD/STI. When this happens, the infected parter can go to the website and with just a few clicks, you can send a notification to your recent (for some medical definition of recent), and they'll be notified to get themselves checked. Now, the whole HIPAA compliance thing (or compliance in general, since the US isn't the only government affected here) would be a bitch and a half, and getting user adoption would be hard ("you use website.com? slut!"), but if it was safe and caught on, I could see it having a real effect on infection rates. Some really common infections (chlamydia, gonorrhea) show no symptoms in a lot of cases, so just getting that easy notification could really help people identify that they have the disease, and so they could get quicker treatment. I just wish I had the skill and finances to try it. Maybe some kid that wants to take a run at YC funding could use this as their idea?