 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Whats your thoughts? It has just been passed so you will shortly be able ti buy a test you can do at home with a thumb prick test similar to checking blood sugar levels in diabetics and it measures for aids enzymes. Would you be happy to do one if a potential meet askes you too? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
You cant put your trust in something so serious .....home testing is a huge growing market and a lot of people want instant answers.
I would and could not trust this ...even doctors can get it wrong sometimes.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"That's what I thought it had a higher accuracy rate than a condom "
I was not aware that a condom could test for the HIV virus.
I think the home testing kit can only be a good thing though ideally there is no replacement for a visit to the GUM clinic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
I think it will be useful for a small number of people in s small number of situations.
My worries would be about false positives and false negatives and not having immediate support for a positive result, but I am assuming people much more qualified than myself (Terrence Higgins Trust) have looked at these issues and still support it.
Anything that can help to prevent the spreading of HIV has got to be a good thing.
BUT for me personally, free, thorough, screenings for HIV plus a lot more at a clinic, is what I will be going for. I can't imagine that these kits are going to be cheaper than free. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"I think it will be useful for a small number of people in s small number of situations.
My worries would be about false positives and false negatives and not having immediate support for a positive result, but I am assuming people much more qualified than myself (Terrence Higgins Trust) have looked at these issues and still support it.
Anything that can help to prevent the spreading of HIV has got to be a good thing.
BUT for me personally, free, thorough, screenings for HIV plus a lot more at a clinic, is what I will be going for. I can't imagine that these kits are going to be cheaper than free."
I mean it's supported by the Terrance Higgins Trust, not that I am the THT |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think it's a bad idea.
If you're going to get news that shitty you'd probably want to be sure someone is there to break it to you.
I'd be worried how people would react in the initial moments of finding out that they had AIDS if they had nobody there to slow them down and rationalise with them.
On the other hand, there are probably people who wouldn't dare bother a health professional with such a trivial matter and would like the notion nipped in the bud, but still, finding out something so serious while you're alone, not a good idea. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why? Ditch the condoms if you pass the home hiv test?
Is this going to lead to more unprotected sex and more babies and the spread of other diseases? "
This!!
Stupid idea. (The test, not the thread/ post.) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's what people would do, based on the test results that concerns me. Showing as negative could mean you have not been infected, haven't produced an immune response to HIV - it can take 3 months, a faulty test for some reason.
A positive test result could devastate a person - do you want to be with them, if they responded adversely?
I think health issues are highly personal. It would be dreadful if someone got scapegoated, for what was a faulty test result, for example. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Hi All, things are a little different here in Greece, our local blood laboratory has been using OraQuick HIV which gives results in 20-40 minutes and sent to your doctor along with all the screens. also told at the clinic there's an outbreak of oral Chlamydia and a new drug being tested for Genital herpes. Connie xx |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
When they make a home screening kit that tests for all the prevalent STDs (syphilis, hepatitis, chlamydia et al) then it's got potential in terms of helping people make a choice regarding how they play.
Whilst HIV is the the most scary and long term, it's certainly not the most widespread or prevalent STD.
But, it's a good step in the right direction when used currently and with good judgment. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No don't ditch the condoms just saying their only something like 96 percent effective and we trust them
What's the 4%?"
I think crossing your fingers gives you an additional 3%  
OP: I'd do it, but I certainly wouldn't rely on it.
Mr ddc |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Whats your thoughts? It has just been passed so you will shortly be able ti buy a test you can do at home with a thumb prick test similar to checking blood sugar levels in diabetics and it measures for aids enzymes. Would you be happy to do one if a potential meet askes you too?"
Would not do it for a meet. Simply because tests can be wrong and it could lead to taking a risk that could still cause the transfer of any number of other STDs.
Condoms remain the only answer for us. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"When they make a home screening kit that tests for all the prevalent STDs (syphilis, hepatitis, chlamydia et al) then it's got potential in terms of helping people make a choice regarding how they play.
Whilst HIV is the the most scary and long term, it's certainly not the most widespread or prevalent STD.
But, it's a good step in the right direction when used currently and with good judgment."
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's a somewhat meaningless test though. It can take months for HIV to become testable and show. And the kits are not even fully accurate. Ok, if someone tested positive it may push them to get more tests and treatments, but that's about it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
