2009

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.

You're right, I was not taking into account anyone on PrEP. I am still under the impression though that the MSM scene is of greater risk statistically; over 60% of infections are in that group. I could be wrong, I guess. I could probably find a recent quote from an expert on that, but I don't really have the time. I certainly made some tongue n cheek judgements about promiscuous females in nightclubs, but certainly not towards men who have sex with men in the last paragraph - I was trying to present facts there.

People blow HIV and other STDs out of proportion. Yes, they are serious, but why are people so concerned of catching Gonorrhoea but not strep throat, for example? I see no difference. Finger warts vs genital warts is another example. Oral herpes (the cold sore) vs genital herpes. Actually, the drug company who made herpes antivirals went on an advertising campaign making people terrified so they could sell their drugs. Before that herpes was considered no big deal. Ok, Syphilis is scary, but we have penicillin. And it is exceedingly rare in heterosexuals, as is HIV (to get on topic with this thread). I take my data from Dr Handsfield and Dr Hook. They wrote the book on HIV. They headed their own institutes in USA and have almost 50 years experience each (they were young doctors when HIV started). There's nobody alive with more experience. Dr Handsfield even won a prestigious award for his work in HIV prevention. Feel free to check the data; I have no inclination to search for exact references just now. The polygamous sexually active woman in an industrialized country has a HIV prevalence of 1 in 1000 on average. And that is the same for prostitutes who work in establishments (e.g. parlours, clubs) Surprisingly, there is no difference documented. The prostitutes who have a HUGELY greater HIV prevalence are the ones working, and sometimes living, on the streets. This has been documented very well. They simply have greater socio-economic problems to worry about than condoms. They are often drug dependent and basically very disfunctional people. They are in a different category from fully-functional sex workers who have their lives "together" and work from establishments as - far as HIV prevalence is concerned. These sex workers do have similar HIV rates as your average nightclub trollup who does it for free (or single sexual active women indulging in multiple partners, to be polite). You may think Thailand is a higher risk than America. Yet in 2019, Thailand had 5400 new infections, while America had 34,800 new infections. Yes, I know: population difference. Even, if you adjust the population figures, America still had more that year. Thailand's cases in 2019 were not too far off the UK's (and population size is similar too). Note: I dunno why this paragraph is in bold; can't seem to get it off. Lol. Thailand's infection rate has steadily been dropping since it's peak of 115,000 cases a year in 1992 (except in Thailand's economic crisis where it spiked a bit that year). Now, what are the odds you will get HIV from a single episode of unprotected vaginal sex with an infected woman? Notice: I said "infected woman" - so that means she has the virus (definitely, without question). The female-to-male transmission rate is 1 in 1000 (1 in 2000 if you are circumcised). So, if we assume that the odds of a woman in Thailand having HIV is 1 in a 1000 (adjust this if you like if you think she is less or more promiscuous) and the chances if getting it from a single episode of vaginal sex with an infected woman are 1 in 1000 as well. Then, the overall risk is 1 in 1,000,000 per random encounter (you just multiply the two factors together), assuming she is a functional person and doesn't sell her body on the streets (as we mentioned before). Let's put that into perspective: the odds of being struck by lightning in your lifetime are about 1 in 15,000. And the odds of dying in a traffic accident (not in Thailand, na!) are around 1 in 100 in your lifetime. I don't know what the odds are in Thailand, but I think it is safe to suggest it is worse. So, clearly, having a single episode of unprotected vaginal sex is not that much of a great risk compared to other risks, like going outside in a storm or hopping in a vehicle. HIV rarely transmits from a single episode of heterosexual sex. There have been documented cases but most HIV specialists have never personally had a patient like that. Heterosexuals who get HIV usually have taken risk after risk after risk. They have exposed themselves to the virus many times until it eventually gets in them. Men who have sex with men are different of course due to the much higher prevalence rate, and according to Dr Handsfield, even if you do it (unprotected) even just a few times you should expect to be infected.

This is true. Advice to the OP. Sell the house. Let your mum keep enough to pay for a few years in the best home, then after that the government picks up the bill and she will stay in the same home (they don't like to move them). The best homes cost a lot though, like a grand a week. However, when you go there, you see why. Really nice, almost like a 5 star hotel run by nurses. This is what has been done in my family/friend circle. It works. You really just need to pay the first few years.

Yeah, I believe if you stay in Thailand 6 months a year you have to pay tax, but not sure about overseas investments.

Interesting, what if you are a British citizen (non-resident) and holding stock (not in UK)?

Interesting, has something changed? I worked abroad as an engineer for decades and the way it worked out with our company/agency was: if we only came home for less than 3 months a year, our income was tax-free. It was a UK company, btw, the work was just done abroad.

I feel your pain. They think gold is an investment. They dump a day's wage on lottery numbers. They are happy borrowing from loan sharks to get through life. Yet they are smart enough to squeeze their entire arm up a farang's backside - to the elbow - without him even noticing (until it's too late). There are some financial instruments they know how to play. Well, I think that's just a woman thing, not specific to Thai. "I am not a financial instrument, teerak!"

Well, an agent might charge you 10% max. For that, you get: advertising, the property is continuously occupied, the best market rate negotiated, proper legal contract and knowledge of law, and someone to handle matters (e.g. like a cigarette burn on your sofa). And let's be honest, professional agents can do that better than you sitting on Pattaya beach getting smoked. You'd lose that 10% trying to manage it yourself.

And this is like the height of irony, cos they probably thought they were being conservative.

Exactly The problem is the only financial instruments the average person understands is: property and a savings account. Investing in stocks is a mystery to the average person. I don't have and friends or family whom I am aware of that does it. It's like anything outside of property is too risky, difficult to understand, or just plain gambling.

Damn, they could have just kept their assets and rented them out.

Nice! Just where I want to go this October

My retirement plan is: live in my apartment back west (if I need to cos if health), and live off savings or pension (if I get one). Perhaps my investments will pay off and I'll buy another for a second source of income. Or stay in Thailand or somewhere else (health permitting) and live of rental income, savings, pension possibly. How people get to retirement age without even a one bedroom apartment (bought) in their home country is beyond me.

There are some 5 star care homes though. You just have to pay the first few years and let the government pick up the tab after.

But if you are in the UK less than 3 months a year, there's no tax. Why would she pay him rent after? She could keep the money and when she ends up in a home, it'll be a 5 star home.

Did anything really happen in 10 years? It's a tragic lost cause, I'm afraid. There was potential, but sadly it was not to be. In the privy circle, the good souls are not winning. I'd lower your expectations for the next for the next few years at least. Beautiful place to be a baby or boomer, but if you are anything in between......????