So....despite the rise vs flat of case gains (velocity) in terms of absolute number of infections, Chlamydia is more than 6 times more prevalent. So more than half of the cases are happening...
South Dakota outpaced any other state for the highest rate of infectious syphilis at 84 cases per 100,000 people ... Chlamydia cases were relatively flat from 2021 to 2022, staying at a rate of about 495 per 100,000
So....despite the rise vs flat of case gains (velocity) in terms of absolute number of infections, Chlamydia is more than 6 times more prevalent.
About 59,000 of the 2022 cases involved the most infectious forms of syphilis. Of those, about a quarter were women and nearly a quarter were heterosexual men.
So more than half of the cases are happening within a much smaller population right?
"I think its unknowingly being spread in the cisgender heterosexual population because we really aren't testing for it. We really aren't looking for it" in that population,
But they are testing for it in the non heterosexual population and also not knowingly spreading it right? And still that represent more than half? I don't understand why this article writer is singling out the quote on cis het males here, when the per 100,000 rate would be lower than what they define as non-het. Is there a huge statistical difference between people-who-have-sex-with-men and what the group defined as cis het?
yes. men who have sex with men are, if you'll pardon the phrase, gigantic sluts. I have a lot of lgbt friends and the gay men are fucking constantly and have many sexual partners. Just by sheer...
Is there a huge statistical difference between people-who-have-sex-with-men and what the group defined as cis het?
yes. men who have sex with men are, if you'll pardon the phrase, gigantic sluts. I have a lot of lgbt friends and the gay men are fucking constantly and have many sexual partners. Just by sheer numbers of sexual encounters they will have higher exposure, but gay men also do penetrative anal a lot more than anyone else, the highest risk type of sex for STD transmission.
However because this is the case they're also much more regularly testing and on antivirals like prep, something straight people don't do as much (since they generally aren't having many sexual partners). Doctors consider gay men a 'high risk' population, so when the straights are also dealing with an STD outbreak it makes me think this is a much more transmissible strain of syphillus, or something else that causes it to not be caught early.
I can attest. I feel that, as an SF gay man, I hook up less than some of my friends at around avg ~1.2 guys a week; they average between 3~5 guys. But I get an STI test every 3 months and stay on...
I can attest. I feel that, as an SF gay man, I hook up less than some of my friends at around avg ~1.2 guys a week; they average between 3~5 guys. But I get an STI test every 3 months and stay on top of my vaccinations, and so does everyone else I know.
I think that even though we're labeled a high risk population, I feel that with some street sense gay sex is very safe. Sexual health education and awareness are widespread here. There are sexual health clinics, funded by both state grants and private donations, offer cheap or free STI testing.
street sense: assessing if a guy seems put together, to care about his general health and fitness, and has his adult shit together, and is comfortable with his sexuality (i.e. not "discreet"). I think that these are strong proxies for being on top of one's own sexual health.
So....despite the rise vs flat of case gains (velocity) in terms of absolute number of infections, Chlamydia is more than 6 times more prevalent.
So more than half of the cases are happening within a much smaller population right?
But they are testing for it in the non heterosexual population and also not knowingly spreading it right? And still that represent more than half? I don't understand why this article writer is singling out the quote on cis het males here, when the per 100,000 rate would be lower than what they define as non-het. Is there a huge statistical difference between people-who-have-sex-with-men and what the group defined as cis het?
yes. men who have sex with men are, if you'll pardon the phrase, gigantic sluts. I have a lot of lgbt friends and the gay men are fucking constantly and have many sexual partners. Just by sheer numbers of sexual encounters they will have higher exposure, but gay men also do penetrative anal a lot more than anyone else, the highest risk type of sex for STD transmission.
However because this is the case they're also much more regularly testing and on antivirals like prep, something straight people don't do as much (since they generally aren't having many sexual partners). Doctors consider gay men a 'high risk' population, so when the straights are also dealing with an STD outbreak it makes me think this is a much more transmissible strain of syphillus, or something else that causes it to not be caught early.
I can attest. I feel that, as an SF gay man, I hook up less than some of my friends at around avg ~1.2 guys a week; they average between 3~5 guys. But I get an STI test every 3 months and stay on top of my vaccinations, and so does everyone else I know.
I think that even though we're labeled a high risk population, I feel that with some street sense gay sex is very safe. Sexual health education and awareness are widespread here. There are sexual health clinics, funded by both state grants and private donations, offer cheap or free STI testing.
street sense: assessing if a guy seems put together, to care about his general health and fitness, and has his adult shit together, and is comfortable with his sexuality (i.e. not "discreet"). I think that these are strong proxies for being on top of one's own sexual health.
Yes, but the concern is because syphilis was nearly eradicated in the US in the 90s.