Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chicup That number is the number of people who are serropositive, in other words they have anti-bodies to HSV-2 in their system. This does not mean they have herpes only that they were exposed to it at some point. |
Do you think serropositive means that you are not infected and, so long as you have never had a symptomatic outbreak, you are not infected and cannot transmit the disease? What is your source for this?
Serropositive means that your body has developed antibodies to the virus. Your body develops antibodies in response to the presence of the virus. So, to develop antibodies, you must have had the virus within your body. That means you were infected. That is what "exposed" means.
Whether your "exposure" was sufficient to give rise to a recurring case of HSV 2 capable of being transmitted to others, is not easily determined. Of course, doctors can prove the positive (that you are capable of transmitting the infection) if you have an outbreak and a positive culture can be developed from that outbreak. However, since no one can predict if or when the next outbreak will occur (if ever), it is impossible to determine, with certainty, that someone who has been exposed is incapable of transmitting the disease.
Most doctors will tell someone who is serropositive to assume that they are not "infected" unless or until they develop an active outbreak. This isn't because you do not carry the virus or they know for sure that you cannot communicate the disease. This is becasuse there is really nothing medical science can do to treat you (unless and until it turns symptomatic). Moreover, as everyone seems to understand, unless there is an active outbreak, the risk of transmitting the disease, even in the absence of condoms, is very, very low.
However, for the risk adverse out there, does the play/no play equation change if the person admits to being serropositive but claims to have never suffered an outbreak and to have never been diagnosed with the disease? Don't you have to assume that everyone who tests serropositive is infected and capable of communicating the disease?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chicup The EXPRESSED incidence of genital herpes 2 is 1.8-.4% of the population. |
What do you mean by the "EXPRESSED" incidence? That someone had an outbreak, that outbreak has been swabbed, and that a positive culture has developed from that swab? What is the source of your information?
At any one time, between .4% and 1.8% of the population is suffering from a symptomatic outbreak of the disease capable of communicating it to others (that's what this statistic means). Of course, a far larger percentage of the population is infected with the disease lying dormant. This is because the disease lays dormant for months or even years (or maybe forever for some) between outbreaks.
So long as you measure the risk of infection only in terms of playing during outbreaks, than your odds of running into an EXPRESSED case of herpes (one that is in outbreak and most communicable) is about 2 in 100--probably a lot less since symptomatic sufferers are likely to stay home. And, I agree that the EXPRESSED risk is probably your better risk measure since the risk of transmission drops dramatically if there is no outbreak.
But, everyone needs to understand what this statistic represents. It is not a measure of the population that is infected. It is not a measure of the population that has symptomatic outbreaks. It is the measure of the population with a symptomatic outbreak at any given time. Who comprises that population changes as outbreaks subside in some people and develop in others.
Of course, reliance upon this statistic suggest that you would be willing to play with a couple who does not have an EXPRESSED case of the disease. Is that how those infected with herpes should view themselves? If they do not have an EXPRESSED case, then they can call themselves "disease free"?