| RobertVB 2004-09-10, 10:06 pm |
| In article <7610d.14446$Vl5.3552@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, Zim
<zim@irk.gov> wrote:
> And where did you get that number? I certainly didn't see it on the CDC
> site, in fact offhand I can't seem to recall having ever seen a study
> which determined the actual transmission risks for each type of sexual
> activity. And whatever the anal sex transmission risk is, it becomes
> infinitely riskier when there is a 10.7% chance your partner is infected.
HIV transmission varies greatly according to a number of factors:
viral load is astronomically high in the initial couple of months
before the carrier's body has had time to make antibodies. Risk of
infection in partners is very high during this time.
Once antibodies are produced the amount of free circulating virus is
much lower and the risks go down accordingly.
If someone who is infected is on anti HIV treatment, their viral load
is very low and they are of the lowest infectivity as long as the viral
load stays down.
And those with STDs are more likely to transmit AND be infected with
HIV if the opportunity strikes.
As to the exact difference between anal and vaginal risk for the
receptive partner no one can be sure since there is no way to really
test that in an objective manner - too many variables you can't control
in human surveillence studies. I think most agree that anal
intercourse is riskier than vaginal but beyond that it is all really
guesswork. Best to be safe at all times.
--
"...when all the noise quiets down, in that moment we should see our way clear
to allowing same-sex couples to marry for the same, selfish primitive reasons
that we do: to not be alone, to have a steady source of comfort in our lives,
to belong to someone who has promised to be there for us tomorrow and tomorrow
and tomorrow."
"After all, what else is marriage for?"
-- Robert Lerose, 2004 winner - 'Great American Thinkoff' contest
|