So... HSV-1. Who has it?

[Kookz]

I will quite simply not believe the poll until the results show 80-90% have it. I got my first cold sore at 22, have only had 3 ever, but basically 100% of the population is exposed to it and only a small % is completely immune, even if you've never had a breakout.

 

[RedLantern]

Originally Posted by tiecollector

I read once that 95% of people will get it by the time they die. I get cold sores once every couple years. It's common for wrestlers to get it on their chest.

I've got Herpes Gladitorium (mat herpes, wrestling herpes, etc). Havent had any real outbreaks since high school, but man, that **** sucks. Feels like having the flu with a ton of body soreness, no energy, cold sweats, and the like.

 

[Tokyo Slim]

There must be a disproportionate number of people who have never had any human contact on this board.

 

[Mr. Macaque]

U.S. Dept of Health recommends against testing for herpes if you don't show any symptoms. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf05/herpes/herpesrs.htm

 

[Intelligent Design]

I'm clean.

 

[Tokyo Slim]

Originally Posted by Mr. Macaque

U.S. Dept of Health recommends against testing for herpes if you don't show any symptoms. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf05/herpes/herpesrs.htm
That seems pretty irresponsible to me.

Rationale: The USPSTF found no evidence that screening asymptomatic adolescents and adults with serological tests for HSV antibody improves health outcomes or symptoms or reduces transmission of disease. There is good evidence that serological screening tests can accurately identify those persons who have been exposed to HSV. There is good evidence that antiviral therapy improves health outcomes in symptomatic persons (e.g., those with multiple recurrences); however, there is no evidence that the use of antiviral therapy improves health outcomes in those with asymptomatic infection. The potential harms of screening include false-positive test results, labeling, and anxiety, although there is limited evidence of any potential harms of either screening or treatment. The USPSTF determined the benefits of screening are minimal, at best, and the potential harms outweigh the potential benefits.

The potential benefit of accurately identifying that you've been exposed to herpes is minimal, but the harm of knowing that you are HSV positive and being anxious about it outweighs that? That can't really be what they just said.

 

[Kookz]

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

That seems pretty irresponsible to me.



The potential benefit of accurately identifying that you've been exposed to herpes is minimal, but the harm of knowing that you are HSV positive and being anxious about it outweighs that? That can't really be what they just said.

I can sort of see where they're coming from. There's really 0 benefit to knowing you're positive, so why have people worry about it or get labeled as "dirty" from people who think they don't have it (when they probably do).


See: this thread.

 

[Tokyo Slim]

Originally Posted by Kookz

I can sort of see where they're coming from. There's really 0 benefit to knowing you're positive, so why have people worry about it or get labeled as "dirty" from people who think they don't have it (when they probably do). See: this thread.
There's no benefit to knowing if you are HSV-1 positive. BUT the tests also tell you whether you are HSV-2 positive or not. And even if you've never had a genital outbreak, you can still pass on the disease. Not being tested for herpes and just assuming you don't have it is stupid.

 

[Kookz]

Ah, yes that's a good reason to. I see that they simply said HSV, but I just made the assumption they meant HSV-1. If they're saying not to get tested for either, that's pretty silly.

 

[Tokyo Slim]

Originally Posted by Kookz

Ah, yes that's a good reason to. I see that they simply said HSV, but I just made the assumption they meant HSV-1. If they're saying not to get tested for either, that's pretty silly.
It's the same test. It tests for both. Now, the doctor may or may not TELL you your HSV-1 results, but that's something else altogether. I find it somewhat scary/amusing that 15 out of 28 people who've voted so far claim to be HSV-1 Negative. I have a feeling that at least a few of you are just assuming that you don't have it.

 

[Mr. Macaque]

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

The potential benefit of accurately identifying that you've been exposed to herpes is minimal, but the harm of knowing that you are HSV positive and being anxious about it outweighs that? That can't really be what they just said.

yup. they recommend not knowing and just passing it around. i believe the rationale is that most people are asymptomatic, so it doesn't matter that they have it, and those who do show symptoms can be treated rather effectively.

 

[B1FF]

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

There must be a disproportionate number of people who have never had any human contact on this board.

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

II find it somewhat scary/amusing that 15 out of 28 people who've voted so far claim to be HSV-1 Negative. I have a feeling that at least a few of you are just assuming that you don't have it.

You get yourself infected and the rest of us are a bunch of ignorant cave hermits with bad memories who simply must be in the same boat as you.

 

[tiecollector]

Well you can easily get it from relatives as a child.

 

[Kookz]

Originally Posted by B1FF

You get yourself infected and the rest of us are a bunch of ignorant cave hermits with bad memories who simply must be in the same boat as you.

Yeah, I'm quite sure I got it from one of my parents when I was just a kid. Still only had 3 cold sores in my life, first one at 22 years old.

Either people in the poll are lying or simply ignorant, or StyleForum is filled with a bunch of people who weren't kissed by their parents and have never kissed any men/women their own age.

Now that I think about it, that's a rather reasonable explanation...

 

[db_ggmm]

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

It's the same test. It tests for both. Now, the doctor may or may not TELL you your HSV-1 results, but that's something else altogether.

You guys are missing so much of the big picture here. The case the U.S Dept of Health makes for not testing is legit.