DwayneEMTP Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Hey all, In my current gig there is a ton of high risk behavior where HIV exposure is concenrned. I was recently talking to an expat that participates regularly in such behavor. (unprotected sex with locals, sometimes multiple partners in a night.) When I asked him if he wasn't worried about the exposure he said, "Nah, I get tested all the time" I've no idea how often that is, but I'm guessing yearly. I'm not sure how regular testing makes you more responsible, but whatever. That got me to wondering, how long between exposure and contraction of HIV to the time of a positive test? (I know it can vary, but a general rule?) And how long from contraction to the ability to infect others? I'd thought that the internet would be loaded with this exact information, but after a few hours of searching I can't find this directly addressed anywhere. Thanks for any information that you can provide. Also, please don't post links to long articles or vids as answers. Though I'm grateful for the time spent locating them, I can't view them here with my limited internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arctickat Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 From the CDC website: Most HIV tests are antibody tests that measure the antibodies your body makes against HIV. It can take some time for the immune system to produce enough antibodies for the antibody test to detect, and this time period can vary from person to person. This time period is commonly referred to as the “window period.” Most people will develop detectable antibodies within 2 to 8 weeks (the average is 25 days). Even so, there is a chance that some individuals will take longer to develop detectable antibodies. Therefore, if the initial negative HIV test was conducted within the first 3 months after possible exposure, repeat testing should be considered >3 months after the exposure occurred to account for the possibility of a false-negative result. Ninety-seven percent of persons will develop antibodies in the first 3 months following the time of their infection. In very rare cases, it can take up to 6 months to develop antibodies to HIV. From thebody.com It's very hard to determine what is the minimal amount of time between when a person becomes infected with HIV, and when they become infectious to others. We really don't know what the bare minimum amount of time is before a person can infect others. Therefore, we must assume that once a person is infected, they are immediately infectious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paramedicmike Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 I was typing the same time 'Kat posted. His numbers are accurate. As far as transmission goes, if you can test positive you can transmit. Also, you're probably well aware, the expat with whom you were speaking is an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chbare Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Dwayne: The safest thing to say is that there will always be a non zero probability of HIV transmission regardless of the "viral load." However, I can apply a few concepts and make somewhat of a working model. According to the Swiss model, the probability of infection during heterosexual sex if the viral load is less than 40 copies/ml of blood is quite low, but non zero nonetheless. When appreciating a "typical" course of HIV infection, you have about 2-3 weeks before the viral load reaches 10(2) or 100 copies/ml. Since 10(2) is on the order of magnitude of 40, we can safely say that in an "average or typical" course rates of infection from heterosexual contact will probably be very low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medicgirl05 Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Dwayne-stay away from those behaviors. You will see your wife soon enough! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paramedicmike Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 The possibility of male infection in heterosexual sex is lower than that of the possibility of female infection. At the same time, throw in coinfections and chances of infection in both directions increase. Of course, moving away from HIV for a moment, other STDs are now demonstrating resistance to treatment. Gonorrhea, for example, has strains that don't respond to the normal antibiotic treatments. So, throw in other STD infections and one increases the possibility of contracting HIV at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DwayneEMTP Posted March 24, 2013 Author Share Posted March 24, 2013 Thanks all.... Good points Mike... MG, it's not my way to play on my gigs, though I know, or guess anyway, that you were teasing. Even though, believe it or not, since leaving for my first remote gig Babs said, "I know that men are men, and you may find that there are things that you need to do while being away for such long stretches. If you need to, that's ok...just be careful and don't ever tell me, ok?" Awesome, right?? Unfortunately, though there have been many times that I really, really, 'wanted' to do something to fill some lonely nights, and no remote medic, even those that look like me, are ever shy of invitations, I've never 'needed' too...and my bullshit conscience won't allow me to blur the lines of such a generous permission. So, nothing to hide so far. Plus, man, one of the ways to get killed here, without police involvement, is to steal/kill a man's pig(s), kill a man's wontak (one talk, tribesman/woman, someone that speaks the same local dialect)or to make inappropriate comments advancements to a married woman. So having sex with a local woman, and many are highly motivated to misrepresent their relationship status to force 'compensation'...Yeah, man...not happening to this horny ol' white boy. Thanks all for your help on this. I'd had kind of a general feeling for the facts, but I like that so many smart people chimed in. So many in high risk behaviors (We know a "swinger" couple that say the same) say, "Oh yeah, we get tested all the time..", people that should know better, that I thought that maybe it was me that misunderstood the risks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
island emt Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Just get ahold of yourself Dwayne : It's not worth dying for. Especially with what you have at home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Plain Ruff Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Just get ahold of yourself Dwayne : It's not worth dying for. Especially with what you have at home. Just get a Hold of yourself. No better advice ever given. Get the pun??? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eydawn Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 This expat too dumb to invest in using proper protection? Or just thinks it's cool to capitalize on ignorance and ditch the rubbers? Don't let me know who it is, or they'll get a MAJOR earful. Not only risking their well being, but the well being of every partner they have and will have... what a pig. This kind of behavior is inexcusable in someone who knows better, and makes me just plain angry. "I get tested all the time"- sure they do. SUUUURE they do. Even so, what damn good does it do you? You're still infected... Wendy RN-ADN CO EMT-B 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts