3 ms·
It's true that it's less likely, but calling it "unlikely" is grossly irresponsible. Yes, the chance is only 1-2%, but that's per vaginal sexual encounter. (And
by lukeschlather 1y ago
It's true that it's less likely, but calling it "unlikely" is grossly irresponsible. Yes, the chance is only 1-2%, but that's per vaginal sexual encounter. (And it's also "only" 20% for anal.)
https://stanfordhealthcare.org/medical-conditions/sexual-and-reproductive-health/hiv-aids/causes/risk-of-exposure.html https://stanfordhealthcare.org/medical-conditions/sexual-and...
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3412216/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3412216/
- kstrauser 1y agoYeah, agreed. That was the takeaway 3 decades ago, and I only bring it up no out of curiosity of how erroneous that turned out to be. I’d hope no one would describe it that way today.
- badlibrarian 1y agoThat doesn't match what the top study says: 1.4% for anal and 0.08% for vaginal. > The analysis, based on the results of four studies, estimated the risk through receptive anal sex (receiving the penis into the anus, also known as bottoming) to be 1.4%. > It is estimated the risk of HIV transmission through receptive vaginal sex (receiving the penis in the vagina) to be 0.08% (equivalent to 1 transmission per 1,250 exposures).
- lukeschlather 1y agoAh, you're right. I pulled a totally unrelated statistic. Complete nonsense to say that it's unlikely for vaginal sex.
- badlibrarian 1y agoIn the fog of the day, you can understand why 1 transmission per 1,250 occurrences qualified as unlikely. Female prostitutes were self-reporting that they didn't use condoms and weren't showing symptoms. Meanwhile the disease decimated the gay male population which is why it was called GRID ("Gay-Related Immune Deficiency"). It was a complicated and horrible time and the data really wasn't there.