1 in 4 NYC adults have Herpes

[JustAskJulie]

According to this study: Study: 1 in 4 adults in NYC have herpes virus

But, really I think that's about the same percentage that they've been saying overall.

[SnowwwWhite]

Yeah, I read that article today, too. Yikes!!!

I also had a conversation about the article with a co-worker this afternoon.... I was telling him "wow, imagine walking down the street in Manhattan and 1 out of every 4 people has herpes." He argued that I wasn't taking into account the different rates of infection for different races, ages, and socio-economic groups and that different boroughs are affected at different rates.

Sure, I know there are statistics that prove different infection rates among women vs. men and white vs. black, but still... regardless of who they are they're still PEOPLE GETTING INFECTED. Just scary. Not to mention that the article also said that people with herpes have a significantly increased susceptibility to HIV. I wonder what everyone else thinks about that article?

Study: 1 in 4 adults in NYC have herpes virus

(Sorry guys, I've always been especially freaked by STDs so as I start posting more on SB you'll probably notice that I gravitate to those discussions and I have a morbid curiosity of STDs in general)

[VegasLee]

If you notice it also states that a higher percentage of women have Herpes in NYC.

Looks like us men should start finding out if the women we want to play with are from NYC.

Making list here:
NYC Women
Drunk Women
Drunk women from NYC are totally out of the question.

[knb2004]

I gotta tell you, the more research I've done about herpes the less freaked out I find myself about it. Not that I would welcome it in any way, shape, or form, but it doesn't appear to be the demon I previously thought.

Demographic differences notwithstanding, it is true that 20-25% of the population has it, and my research indicates that most of that 25% don't even know it, which implies they've either never been symptomatic, or have been minorly symptomatic at best. The medical profession considers it nothing more than a nuisance, and in fact it seems they won't even screen for it on a standard STI panel unless specifically asked.

It's also true that HSV-1, which usually shows up as cold sores in the mouth, is a kissing cousin to HSV-2 and most of us have it. I do, have since I was a kid. From what I've read having HSV-1 seems to provide some protection against contracting -2, but truth be told if a disease is so minor that most people who have it don't even know it, it just doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

[highlander]

There is now an HSV test available from AIM Foundation(AIM Healthcare - Home) and some other testing sites.

Condoms don't help as well with HSV infection as with some other STD's, that makes testing more important there. The other thing you can do is to learn how to recognize what an active HSV outbreak looks like.

Saying that HSV is "no big deal" is a bit callous. For some folks it is no big deal-for others HSV is quite painful.

[filmny718]

That is pretty scary... I am glad to say that I am clean!

[celtic239]

I am somewhat skeptical of this alleged study. It would be helpful if the Dept of Health would release the data that supported the 20% claim. I recall the Dept of Health here in NY demanding all sorts of funding to fight the AIDS epidemic during the 80' stating that millions of (presumably white) heterosexuals would be infected withing 7-10 years. Well the 90's came and went and lo and behold the prediction didn't pan out at all.
While I'm not against trying to find a cure for HSV 2 or any other disease, I don't like getting played.
I have a feeling that the Dept of Health found a few random people in NYC that carry the type 2 virus, without symptoms, and extrapolated that small test group to include 20% of all NYC. I believe that the city has approximately 8 million residents. So that would mean that approximately 1.6 million have the HSV 2 virus. If that were true the city would be awash in Valtrex.
Just my .02 cents.

[Chicup]

You are mostly correct and often those studies are overblown, and poorly done with a biased sample.

Another issue is they may use an antibody test to show exposure. Exposure is not the same as having it, you might not have any virus at all in your system, never had HSV II but you did develop anti-bodies to it.

[slevin]

Originally Posted by Chicup

You are mostly correct and often those studies are overblown, and poorly done with a biased sample.

Another issue is they may use an antibody test to show exposure. Exposure is not the same as having it, you might not have any virus at all in your system, never had HSV II but you did develop anti-bodies to it.

This is exactly why most doctors won't even test for HSV during an STD screening unless it's specifically asked for.