|
zenofeller -> RE: SAFE, SANE & CONSENSUAL..... (9/28/2006 7:48:11 PM)
|
there's two points of some import. firstly, tests aren't particularly usefull. take for instance HIV, which would be the daddy of STDs. suppose someone has unprotected sex today, that results in the virus being transmitted. if they get tested tomorrow, they will come up negative in virtually every test available (there are a couple rather expensive ones that have a shot at detecting it. a shot). if he gets tested next week he's still going to be negative. next month, he's mostly going to show positive, in lab tests. but months down the road the do it yourself test kits will still show false negatives. are you willing to do the test twice and wait 6 months ? secondly, tests are pretty expensive, and many elective tests (ie, not ordered by doctor) are not actually covered by many insurance plans. unless doctors are trying to do epidemics prophylaxy, they aren't very likely to order tests. especially they aren't going to run STD tests randomly during yearly check-ups. mostly because if they were to start with it, there's a list of at least 100 things they would want to check first, before they'd get to STDs, all sorts of cancerous and metabolic problems, toxicities etc. your yearly would end up taking an actual year. and also because it's considered by many a sort of invasion of privacy, in an unexamined sort of way. in short, most people overestimate how well they're being tested (uhh, but i went to the doctor every year for a check-up, well, except last year, cause i was busy, and the year before cause i didn't remember... and it's not yet time this year) and how effectual tests in fact are.
|
|
|
|