Sex Tourism To Thailand And Indonesia Driving Rise In HIV Cases

[Chopperboy]

there are over 50% of false positive results in HIV tests.

The specificity rate given here for the inexpensive enzyme immunoassay screening tests indicates that, in 1,000 HIV test results of healthy individuals, about 15 of these results will be a false positive. Confirming the test result (i.e., by repeating the test, if this option is available) could reduce the ultimate likelihood of a false positive to about 1 result in 250,000 tests given.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV_test#Accuracy_of_HIV_testing

[geriatrickid]

Wow, 19% amongst freelance sex workers.

Use a condom. Why take a chance?

Either way, condom or not, there's always "a chance" having sex with SP's.

For insertive penile to vaginal intercourse:

1. Without a condom, maybe 1 in 50,000 chance each time.

2. Without a condom + circumcised, maybe 1 in 250,000 chance

3. With a condom + not circumcised, maybe 1 in 500,000 chance.

4. Without a condom + recently HIV (An/Ab) tested negative, maybe 1 in a million chance

5. Without a condom in a monogamous relationship with a "good TG", maybe 1 in 500,000 chance.

6. With a condom in a monogamous relationship with a "good TG", maybe 1 in 5 million chance.

7. Add recent HIV (An/Ab) testing to the above 2 & you're virtually like one who's immune to HIV

8. Wank off alone at home to porn, basicly no chance of HIV infection.

9. W/O condom + SP & client agree to not go without latex with anyone else, IOW BBFS monogamy, maybe a 1 in 250,000 chance.

10. Add recent negative HIV (An/Ab) testing to # 9 & it's maybe a 1 in 2 million chance.

Add anal sex, with & especially without a condom, to any of the above & risk goes way up.

Forgoe insertive genital intercourse & substitite HJ, CBJ, BBBJ, DATY, DFK, titty fuc_k, BLS, BBPS, anal licking, mutual masturbation, etc, instead & your safety level goes way up.

I do not know where you ontained your numbers, but I do not believe that they are reflective of Thailand.

However, I do not want to start an argument over it. Rather, I direct your attention to a common sense aspect. Whenever, one comes up with the "likelihood" of contracting a disease, it is provided in respect to the whole population. If one is more realistic and takes the high risk segments, the odds become less reassuring. For example, If one were to visit Boyztown in Pattaya or Bangla in Patong, and pick up a freelancing prostitute, chances are much higher that one would be exposed to an STI, than if 2 Mahidol students were frisky in a dorm room. It gets down to the likelihood of one of the participants being infected with something. Tourists are taking their sex partner from a high risk pool, whereas most other people are not. The end result is that the actual risk is muted.

Sex tourists are fishing from a pond where the raw sewage is dumped, so the chances are they will get sick.

[geriatrickid]

I support screening of everyone as it is those that don't know they have it are the greatest risk of spreading it, the WHO latest strategy is to test and treat as studies have shown that people on effective treatment are extremely unlikely to infect others

You cannot screen people coming through an airport as medical evidence can be falsified and you will also discourage people from getting tested and treated - completely useless and a huge step in the wrong direction

Until a whole population is tested there is no way to know the extent of the problem, take this thread as an example - how many people posting here have actually had a test - i'd be surprised if it was over 50% - how many of the total population in Thailand have been tested - I guess less than 20% - take a country like Africa where we know HIV to be at epidemic proportions the test rate there is probably more than 80% - that tells me something

there are over 50% of false positive results in HIV tests.

What are you talking about? Are you referring to the spot blood or saliva tests? They exceed 95% accuracy with the goal being 98%.

[manarak]

I support screening of everyone as it is those that don't know they have it are the greatest risk of spreading it, the WHO latest strategy is to test and treat as studies have shown that people on effective treatment are extremely unlikely to infect others

You cannot screen people coming through an airport as medical evidence can be falsified and you will also discourage people from getting tested and treated - completely useless and a huge step in the wrong direction

Until a whole population is tested there is no way to know the extent of the problem, take this thread as an example - how many people posting here have actually had a test - i'd be surprised if it was over 50% - how many of the total population in Thailand have been tested - I guess less than 20% - take a country like Africa where we know HIV to be at epidemic proportions the test rate there is probably more than 80% - that tells me something

there are over 50% of false positive results in HIV tests.

What are you talking about? Are you referring to the spot blood or saliva tests? They exceed 95% accuracy with the goal being 98%.

The rate of false positives is only indirectly and non-linearily linked to test accuracy.

What I am saying is, of the people who test positive, 50% really are negative.

I am talking about the quick blood tests that are 99% accurate.

Therefore, when anyone tests positive, they normally have to retest using two other different methods. 50% of the retests are negative, but they take much more time than one minute looking on a reactive strip.

Therefore this kind of screening is not adequate for filtering visitors to Thailand.

Edited May 22, 2012 by manarak

[manarak]

there are over 50% of false positive results in HIV tests.

The specificity rate given here for the inexpensive enzyme immunoassay screening tests indicates that, in 1,000 HIV test results of healthy individuals, about 15 of these results will be a false positive. Confirming the test result (i.e., by repeating the test, if this option is available) could reduce the ultimate likelihood of a false positive to about 1 result in 250,000 tests given.

http://en.wikipedia...._of_HIV_testing

exactly.

take an HIV pravalence rate of 1.5% similar to Thailand, and if testing 1000 people you will have 15 false positives plus 15 real positives => i.e. 15 of the 30 people (=50%) testing positive are false positives.

But it takes more than a simple restest with the same kind of test, because the same test is likely to show positive again. A restest is usually done by using two other much more accurate testing methods, but results take much more time to show (needs to go to a laboratory).

Edited May 22, 2012 by manarak

[oldthaihand99]

Wow, 19% amongst freelance sex workers.

Use a condom. Why take a chance?

Either way, condom or not, there's always "a chance" having sex with SP's.

For insertive penile to vaginal intercourse:

1. Without a condom, maybe 1 in 50,000 chance each time.

2. Without a condom + circumcised, maybe 1 in 250,000 chance

3. With a condom + not circumcised, maybe 1 in 500,000 chance.

4. Without a condom + recently HIV (An/Ab) tested negative, maybe 1 in a million chance

5. Without a condom in a monogamous relationship with a "good TG", maybe 1 in 500,000 chance.

6. With a condom in a monogamous relationship with a "good TG", maybe 1 in 5 million chance.

7. Add recent HIV (An/Ab) testing to the above 2 & you're virtually like one who's immune to HIV

8. Wank off alone at home to porn, basicly no chance of HIV infection.

9. W/O condom + SP & client agree to not go without latex with anyone else, IOW BBFS monogamy, maybe a 1 in 250,000 chance.

10. Add recent negative HIV (An/Ab) testing to # 9 & it's maybe a 1 in 2 million chance.

Add anal sex, with & especially without a condom, to any of the above & risk goes way up.

Forgoe insertive genital intercourse & substitite HJ, CBJ, BBBJ, DATY, DFK, titty fuc_k, BLS, BBPS, anal licking, mutual masturbation, etc, instead & your safety level goes way up.

I do not know where you ontained your numbers, but I do not believe that they are reflective of Thailand.

However, I do not want to start an argument over it. Rather, I direct your attention to a common sense aspect. Whenever, one comes up with the "likelihood" of contracting a disease, it is provided in respect to the whole population. If one is more realistic and takes the high risk segments, the odds become less reassuring. For example, If one were to visit Boyztown in Pattaya or Bangla in Patong, and pick up a freelancing prostitute, chances are much higher that one would be exposed to an STI, than if 2 Mahidol students were frisky in a dorm room. It gets down to the likelihood of one of the participants being infected with something. Tourists are taking their sex partner from a high risk pool, whereas most other people are not. The end result is that the actual risk is muted.

Sex tourists are fishing from a pond where the raw sewage is dumped, so the chances are they will get sick.

Of course your "example" is obviously true, just as two virgins are less likely to have HIV than a veteran freelancer who often engages in bareback anal with many customers.

Thai society, i think, with their mia noi (2nd wives), & attitudes towards life, sex & relationships, is more promiscuous than in Western countries.

It's much more likely a Thai university "student", or other young Thai lady, is going to be working in the sex industry than their counterpart in Canada. It's known that many work PT in venues or as "freelancers" in the "sex tourist" zones in Bangkok to earn baht to pay for the latest gadgets, brand name clothes, etc. Young Thai men are far more likely to visit a SP (service provider) for sex than young men in the West.

Those are some factors as to why the HIV rate is higher in LOS than in the West. Other factors are the greater failure rate in practicing safer sex, e.g. not using condoms, seldom being circumcised, neglecting regular STI testing, etc.

The rate of HIV infection in Siam is usually listed around 1%. For venue FSW a recent study mentioned earlier in this thread listed the rate as 1.8% in 2011, which is down from the almost 4% of a few years ago.

Personally I've picked up 3 freelance sex workers who all tested negative for HIV (Ag/An), so the "chances i'd get sick" from having an act of sex with them were way more remote than if their test status was unknown. So every time, 100% of the time, i had them tested, they were HIV negative & almost assuredly not HIV infected. This is much the same testing method for blood donors in which it was stated:

"In 2009 blood screened for HIV in Greater Accra, Ghana amounted to 33, 294 units of blood, of which 3. 68 percent was found to be HIV positive. 45 Ghana tests 100 percent of its blood donations, however this is done using only antibody tests. Therefore the window period remains a significant interval, which suggests some units may continue to pass through screening undetected.

"In October 2005, South Africa introduced NAT testing and as a result there were no cases of HIV transmission by blood transfusion reported to the haemovigilance programme, a transfusion surveillance system. 46 47

"The availability of nucleic acid tests (NAT) , which reduces the window period and makes testing much more accurate, helped to support the argument for a change in the ban against MSM donating. These tests have been found to almost eliminate the possibility that HIV infected blood will pass through the testing stage, even in countries with high prevalence. 33"

"If a person receives a blood transfusion with HIV-infected blood, there is a 95 percent risk they will become infected with the virus. 4 However the chances of becoming infected with HIV through a blood transfusion varies between countries depending on the level of safety precautions in place, and there is a notable difference between high and low-income countries. In the UK, the risk is now 1 in 5 million. 5"

http://www.avert.org...-safety-hiv.htm

One in 5 million. This gives some idea of the HIV risk in having one act of bareback sex with a UK individual (aged 17 to 65) who has just had this NAT test & donated blood. Note also that recieving HIV in blood from a donor will almost surely infect you (95 percent of the time, as stated) , whereas one act of BB vaginal sex with an infected lady is unlikely to cause you harm (maybe 1 in 1000 chance of getting HIV). Which means the risk level for vaginal BBFS with a random blood donor in the UK would be more like 1 in 5 million X 1000 = 1 in 5,000,000,000, or 1 in about 5 billion.

"Percentage of sex workers who are living with HIV FSW (venue based)"

3.8...2005

2.6...2006

3.6...2007

2.8...2008

1.9...2009

2.2...2010

1.8...2011

"Percentage of sex workers reporting the use of condom with their most recent client"

FSW (venue based) 95.7%...2011

"Percentage of sex workers who have received an HIV test in the past 12 month and know their results"

FSW (venue based), 50.4% in 2011

page 16

http://www.unaids.or...e_Report[1].pdf

Edited May 22, 2012 by oldthaihand99

[manarak]

@oldthaihand

spot on

[cdnvic]

One post removed for being extremely derrogatory to women, and promoting inaccurate conspiracy theories.

[BigJohnnyBKK]

I suppose with Thailands visa reporting rules this could be fairly straightforward. A 'clean' AIDs test certificate presented on each arrival/report and automatic deportation for a fail though with Thailands record for corruption this could easy just turn in to a money making scheme.

I can see that being popular with families coming on holiday, no wait, no family would ever come on holiday to Thailand again.

Leaving just the sex tourists.

Not to mention the civil/human right issue, HIV positive people have the right to travel internationally.

The range of idiocy displayed here is amazing, from people burying their head in the sand (and the wrong head IMO) to those doing enough research to get an advanced degree in the topic.

Of course your odds are improved if you use condoms.

Of course your odds are improved if you don't purchase services from explicit p4p players.

And of course some people get their jollies from living dangerously and may or may not suffer the consequences.

BTW my understanding is that the **only** guaranteed anonymous testing service is at the Red Cross clinic just north of and opposite Lumpini park on Rajadamri, look for the round "castle keep" architecture. Very quick and inexpensive, take your teerak(s) along every few months and enjoy some peace of mind - or if not better to find out earlier rather than later eh?

Edited May 22, 2012 by BigJohnnyBKK

[NomadJoe]

. Sex is difficult without a point of entry.

[supaprik]

Australians are a bit like rednecks. If an incident occurs it is another country that really should be blamed. Sex tourism in Indonesia ?? Sex Tourism in Australia.... sure. You do not want to know how many Australian ladies want to be done by all those nice tourists coming to visit. They are bored of all the drunken Australian men. I bet that more tourists screw Australians than Australians Indonesian or Thai people.

In the land of Robert Murdoch the press and everything they write should be laughed off.

After reading your utter bullshit I know who I would prefer reading. What a load of absolute racist rubbish...

[Chopperboy]

For example, If one were to visit Boyztown in Pattaya or Bangla in Patong, and pick up a freelancing prostitute, chances are much higher that one would be exposed to an STI, than if 2 Mahidol students were frisky in a dorm room.

I think this could be an erroneous assumption.

From what I hear there is a lot of unprotected gay sex going on between Thai men who identify themselves as being "GAY".

Whereas money boys who identify themselves as being "STRAIGHT" (but predominately go with gay customers) are strict about having safe sex. Its simple economics, in the latter case its more about money than fun.

They don't want to lose the money they just earned down the clinic..or worse..

Edited May 23, 2012 by Chopperboy

[oldthaihand99]

Some time ago I was told that the chances of a man being infected with HIV from a woman during vaginal intercourse was 1%, but the chances of a woman being infected by a man who is carrying the disease during vaginal intercourse is 100%, when you have a man in a sexual relationship with another man the chances of infection if one of the partners is carrying the disease jump, I'm not sure of the figures but I'm sure someone would be, so the use of a condom is highly recommended, when I was in the navy my mother always said to me "be good, but if you can't be good be careful".

The estimated HIV infection rate is 5 in 10,000 ( from Wikipedia) , i.e. 1 in 2000, for an uninfected male having vaginal sex with a HIV positive female. Going the other way it's 1 in 1000.

http://en.wikipedia....IV#Transmission

But these estimated rates of HIV transmission could vary depending on a number of factors. Factors that could make the HIV transmission rate higher (or more likely) are vaginal sores, STIs, high viral load, "dry sex", sex during menses (female-to-male transmission) & bleeding during sexual intercourse.

Factors that could make the transmission rate lower are the absence of those problems, male circumcision, use of commercial lubrication, less friction, a lack of female arousal (less juices present), HIV immunity, and HIV ARV meds minimizing the viral load.

The "presence of other STDS or vaginal/cervical abrasions increases the risk of transmission. Obviously, women with a large number of sexual partners are more likely to have these than women without. Abrasions etc are virtually an occupational hazard of sex work." (post # 96 by Sheryl)

http://www.thaivisa....am/page__st__75

It is stated that an old (1994) study of sex workers in Thailand estimated the HIV transmission rate there was 1 in 100. It has been implied that may have been due to such things as an absence of male circumcision & the presence of STDs which increase the liklihood of HIV transmission. Some research has questioned the validity of the Thai study. Another commented on it as follows:

"The sharply increased infectivity reported among female sex workers' clients in an Asian setting may reflect differences by disease stage, as the infectivity study (33) conducted in Asia took place at the start of the epidemic when a large proportion of index cases were in early stages of infection (33, 34). The elevated infectivity in the Asian study also may reflect unmeasured STI co-factor effects, as a large proportion of sex worker index cases were infected with STIs during the study period (67)."

http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/7904668

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2744983/

A number of studies came up with estimates of 1 in 1000 for the average rate of HIV transmission per act of bareback penile to vaginal insertive sex.. A later (2008) report analyzed previous research on this topic & warned that the 1 in 1000 figure may be too high. Yet a recent (2010) study of couples found 1 infection per 2200 (5 in 11,000) acts of BBFS with those known to be HIV positive. No infections resulted from 7000 BBFS encounters with HIV infected individuals on ARV drugs.

"Our findings suggest that in many contexts – particularly in the absence of male circumcision or in the presence of STIs, anal sex, or early or late infection – the heterosexual infectivity of HIV-1 may exceed the commonly cited value of 0·001 (1 in 1000) by more than an order of magnitude."

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/20472675

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2744983/

Edited May 24, 2012 by oldthaihand99

[wildorchid]

SOMNAMNA stupid farang

1. go to bargirl

2. not wear condom

3. come back to australia and give to your wife or gf

4. still keep thai wife bargirl or X bargirl

5. somnamna again

you lay down with dog you wake up with fleas.

[TomTao]

Some time ago I was told that the chances of a man being infected with HIV from a woman during vaginal intercourse was 1%, but the chances of a woman being infected by a man who is carrying the disease during vaginal intercourse is 100%, when you have a man in a sexual relationship with another man the chances of infection if one of the partners is carrying the disease jump, I'm not sure of the figures but I'm sure someone would be, so the use of a condom is highly recommended, when I was in the navy my mother always said to me "be good, but if you can't be good be careful".

The estimated HIV infection rate is 5 in 10,000 ( from Wikipedia) , i.e. 1 in 2000, for an uninfected male having vaginal sex with a HIV positive female. Going the other way it's 1 in 1000.

http://en.wikipedia....IV#Transmission

But these estimated rates of HIV transmission could vary depending on a number of factors. Factors that could make the HIV transmission rate higher (or more likely) are vaginal sores, STIs, high viral load, "dry sex", sex during menses (female-to-male transmission) & bleeding during sexual intercourse.

Factors that could make the transmission rate lower are the absence of those problems, male circumcision, use of commercial lubrication, less friction, a lack of female arousal (less juices present), HIV immunity, and HIV ARV meds minimizing the viral load.

The "presence of other STDS or vaginal/cervical abrasions increases the risk of transmission. Obviously, women with a large number of sexual partners are more likely to have these than women without. Abrasions etc are virtually an occupational hazard of sex work." (post # 96 by Sheryl)

http://www.thaivisa....am/page__st__75

It is stated that an old (1994) study of sex workers in Thailand estimated the HIV transmission rate there was 1 in 100. It has been implied that may have been due to such things as an absence of male circumcision & the presence of STDs which increase the liklihood of HIV transmission. Some research has questioned the validity of the Thai study. Another commented on it as follows:

"The sharply increased infectivity reported among female sex workers' clients in an Asian setting may reflect differences by disease stage, as the infectivity study (33) conducted in Asia took place at the start of the epidemic when a large proportion of index cases were in early stages of infection (33, 34). The elevated infectivity in the Asian study also may reflect unmeasured STI co-factor effects, as a large proportion of sex worker index cases were infected with STIs during the study period (67)."

http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/7904668

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2744983/

A number of studies came up with estimates of 1 in 1000 for the average rate of HIV transmission per act of bareback penile to vaginal insertive sex.. A later (2008) report analyzed previous research on this topic & warned that the 1 in 1000 figure may be too high. Yet a recent (2010) study of couples found 1 infection per 2200 (5 in 11,000) acts of BBFS with those known to be HIV positive. No infections resulted from 7000 BBFS encounters with HIV infected individuals on ARV drugs.

"Our findings suggest that in many contexts – particularly in the absence of male circumcision or in the presence of STIs, anal sex, or early or late infection – the heterosexual infectivity of HIV-1 may exceed the commonly cited value of 0001 (1 in 1000) by more than an order of magnitude."

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/20472675

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2744983/

Thank you for your informative post, another think I heard about from a tv program back in Australia was the incidence of new strains of HIV that are resistant to most treatments on use, from what I remember of the discussion in the program, it was thought that the virus was mutating to adapt to the treatments and the thought that people infected with different strains who were having intercourse while being medicated may be aiding the mutation, something like what happens when people undergoing treatment for STIs such as syphilis and gonorhhea continue to have unprotected intercourse and create drug resistant strains. I was also warned about disease mutation while visiting places in SE Asia where foreign servicemen were stationed while I was serving in the navy.

Sent from my GT-I9003 using Thaivisa Connect App