2009

Exceedingly low - yet tragic for the families. I wonder if they had pre-existing conditions?

Children are barely affected by this! The tops causes of death in children are still by road accident and by drowning -- as they always have been!

Okay, let's look at an example. If the prevalence rate in polygamous American heterosexual females is 1 in 1000. And transmission rate from female to male is 1 in 1000 per episode of sex. Then, the overall risk would be 1 in 1,000,000 for that single encounter. If the prevalence rate was 1 in 100, say, for a homosexual American male. And the transmission rate from recieving anal was, say, 1 in 100. Then the overall risk would be 1 in 10,000 for that single encounter (to the receiving partner.) The more times you do it the worse your odds are, obviously. The part you are not getting is: these risk assessments are for when we don't know a person is negative. So, the thing you said about, "No further number of encounters with negative people will affect that" . You are right! Obviously, because we know their status is negative so they don't even come into the equation. You don't apply this equation to people who are known to be negative. The chances they have it is zero.

Tell that to the experts who use that exact formula when doing a risk assessment. This is documented. Multiplying the transmission rate with the prevalence rate gives you the overall risk figure (for that one encounter). Prevalence odds are altered depending on the person. You would apply a different prevalence odd to a sex worker who works on the street because it is known that they have higher rates. Similarly, someone from Sub-Saharan Africa where there is a greater prevalence rate, or with injectable drug users and men who have sex with men where there is also a greater prevalence. Is it a perfect fomula? No, of course not. But it is the only data available to perform a risk assessment with (and yes, doctors perform risk assessments using this data). For example, if you had sex with a random female in London, a doctor might not recommend testing (though they would probably do it because the patient wants it). But if you did the same thing with a random in the homosexual community or in certain parts of Africa, the doctor would insist on testing due to it being of higher risk.

That's ok. We all have our opinions. Though, some things are fact. The STDs mentioned go unnoticed in women 50% of the time, unlike men who notice the symptoms 90% of the time - just due to anatomy, that's all. People often do go for STD testing due to anxiety (or other emotional reasons, rather than physical symptoms) and most of the time all tests are clear. It is quite a phenomenon really. Most people don't that with other potential diseases. We are sort of hypochondriacs with sexual health, yet negligent with health in general. Truly a phenomenon. Like I said, people don't usually rush off for a colonoscopy every time they have diarrhea, but after a regrettable sexual encounter (without symptoms) they need tests to reassure themselves they are okay. It is pretty common. No misogyny so far and what was wrong on so many levels? Greed, I think, is universal. It is a condition of men and women. I don't mean to make it sound like only women are greedy, but this discussion is about female professionals. I think you took it the wrong way, or you just wanted to call me a nasty name. I really don't think men have control over these women especially considering they earn as much as (if not more than) the average native English speaking teacher. I mean who has control over the price? If you examine the price, it is clearly them who have control over it.

I don't know if I agree with much of this. I am sure there are many men who will go to be tested often unprotected encounters even without symptoms just due to anxiety. People get way over-anxious about STDs and will run off for a test convinced they have something even though the odds are drastically in their favor to not have anything. Imagine if we rushed off for colonoscopy every time we had diarrhea? With things like Chlamydia abd Gonorrhoea men are rarely asymptomatic - less than 10% only - due to our urethras being narrow and there for symptoms being very noticeable/severe. Women, on the other hand, often don't notice (it's 50/50, actually) due to their vaginas being comparitively huge. And on that note Gonorrhoea of the throat goes unnoticed 90% of the time. In case you are wondering, Chlamydia almost never infects the throat - it isn't a very hospitable place for that. Whereas Gonorrhoea is related to strep bacteria and therefor is at home in the throat. Regarding men having power over women with condoms. It may be true in some cases, but it is really the money that has the power. Though, I'd say it is more her greed/desire for money and her decision more so than any power he has.

That's what I was saying in my really lengthy post above. You multiply the transmission odds with the prevalence odds. I came up with 1 in a million. Well, actually an expert called Dr Handsfield did. I am quoting him. He uses standard figures for CSWs in industrialized countries and I have read him use these figures for Thailand too, actually. However, there may be some vary from country to country, of course, I would imagine. I would think 1 in 100,000 would even be a fair conservative estimate for Thailand. Bearing in mind, we are talking about a single episode of sex with a CSW of unknown status.

I think you may have missed the point. What the person is saying is that if your female partner does indeed have HIV, this percentage is the chance that you will get infected from a single episode of vaginal sex with her.

That's what they are saying, yes. I have seen figures of 1 in 1000 (and 1 in 2000 of circumcised males). But apparently, there is data stating it is even less risky.

Serodiscordant means one of the partners literally has HIV and if they are a couple then they are having regular sex (over months, probably years). And you said the infection rate was 1 in 10,000. Whereas, I am talking about the odds associated with randomly picking a partner (the odds are in your favour she doesn't have it) and then becoming infected through a single episode of sex. The only studies I have read about the HIV prevalence of prostitutes in Thailand were conducted on street hookers -- not massage therapists, bar waitresses, or dancers. I mentioned in my post that this has been well-studied in America and the difference in HIV prevalence is enormous.

Yeah, from my extensive experience, the ladies-of-ill-repute in Thailand carry condoms and like to use them consistently. The same, however, cannot be said (in my experience) for promiscuous non-sex workers (both in Asia and in the West). The phrase, "What's a condom?" comes to mind. Don't think it ever crossed their mind.

Bangkok changes so fast and a lot of old bars are gone. But I am in the mood for a historical pub crawl (after covid). I wanna try them before they are no more. And if anyone fancies joining on such a pub crawl, lemme know! I know about the Madrid and the Old Other Office, but what else is there? Doesn't necessarily have to be Vietnam War era, but just bars that have been around since the 90s at least. Cheers.