Quote:
Originally Posted by good times  First, a lot of people have herpes, depending on who you believe the numbers can range anywhere from 10% of the population to as much as 75% (that includes both HSV-1 and HSV-2). So most in the medical profession consider it a waste of time and money to test for something that their is a pretty good chance most people already have. Keep in mind that even though you have never shown symptoms for it, you may have come into contact with it in the past and therefore test positive for it.
Second, as far as std's go, while contracting Herpes surely sucks, it isn't life threatening. Other than a little discomfort when it flares up, they have so far identified no adverse long term effects on an infected persons health. |
Great stuff, I hadn't considered the reasons behind not testing for it other than the fact that it can be inconclusive when using blood tests. Very interesting thought there about not testing for it since it is so common and there is no major medical complications from catching it.
On the subject of medical complications the only two that I'm aware of are a minuscule chance of complications during birth and an apparent increase in the risk of catching HIV. The birth complication chance is so small that some literature doesn't even mention it (the mother really needs to have an active outbreak during delivery to even make it a risk). The risk of an increased chance of catching HIV is controversial and I think purely based in common sense around the risk of having open sores while having sex.
Like you said, no real risk of medical complications. That was probably the most surprising thing I found when I was researching STD risks before we started swinging. With all the hoopla about herpes I instinctively thought there was actual risks beyond the painful sores.