3 ms·

"That's basically worthless because after 13 uses there is a 50/50 chance of infecting someone." Well, there's 50/50 chance of not infecting anybody vs infecti

"That's basically worthless because after 13 uses there is a 50/50 chance of infecting someone." Well, there's 50/50 chance of not infecting anybody vs infecting at least one person from 13. That's a much better chance than say 50% chance of infecting at least 10 person from 13. When you are thinking about spreading a disease, this matters a lot. Sure, for couples, the chances of infection after N use is high, but that's not the only use case. (E.g. one night stands.)

ars 12y ago
You are forgetting that people change behavior based on risk. Telling someone there is a tool to reduce risk, that doesn't actually reduce risk (enough), actually makes things much much worse.
- sz4kerto 12y ago
  Yes, they do change, you're right. However, if it comes to sex, people do not care that much about risks. Condom usage decreases the prevalence and spread of STDs. That is a very hard fact. Therefore I guess that in this specific case increased risk taking does not offset the advantages of decreased risk. (Same seems to be true for things like airbags or seat belts in cars. You could not possibly argue that we should remove these from cars because we end up with more fatalities with them as it is simply not the case.)
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - nickff 12y ago
    Many have argued that airbags actually increase auto-related fatalities through the so-called 'Peltzman effect' (also known as 'risk compensation'), and that removing airbags from vehicles would cause automobile fatalities to decrease or remain constant.[1][2][3] I am no aware of the state of the debate of this effect on condoms or STIs/STDs. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation [2] http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2006/11/peltzman_on_reg.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2006/11/peltzman_on_reg.htm... [3] https://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/2006/060927ManneringOffset.html https://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/2006/060927ManneringOf...

ars 12y ago

You are forgetting that people change behavior based on risk. Telling someone there is a tool to reduce risk, that doesn't actually reduce risk (enough), actually makes things much much worse.

sz4kerto 12y ago
Yes, they do change, you're right. However, if it comes to sex, people do not care that much about risks. Condom usage decreases the prevalence and spread of STDs. That is a very hard fact. Therefore I guess that in this specific case increased risk taking does not offset the advantages of decreased risk. (Same seems to be true for things like airbags or seat belts in cars. You could not possibly argue that we should remove these from cars because we end up with more fatalities with them as it is simply not the case.)
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- nickff 12y ago
  Many have argued that airbags actually increase auto-related fatalities through the so-called 'Peltzman effect' (also known as 'risk compensation'), and that removing airbags from vehicles would cause automobile fatalities to decrease or remain constant.[1][2][3] I am no aware of the state of the debate of this effect on condoms or STIs/STDs. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation [2] http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2006/11/peltzman_on_reg.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2006/11/peltzman_on_reg.htm... [3] https://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/2006/060927ManneringOffset.html https://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/2006/060927ManneringOf...