Herpes - Are we all kidding ourselves?

[knb2004 364]

OK, chances are this post won't be popular, and I need to be crystal clear that this question is based on pure speculation and nothing more.

 

Here's the facts as I understand them.

 

• 25% of American women have HSV-2.
   
  
• 20% of American men have HSV-2.
   
  
• 90% of people who have it are completely asymptomatic and do not know they have it.
   
  
• Doctors will typically not test for it, even in a standard STD panel unless specifically requested.
   
  
• Herpes can be spread even if no breakout is present and condoms are used, or even from casual, non-sexual contact.
  

 

With those facts, I can't help but wonder if a very high percentage of us swingers have it and don't even realize it. Here's my thinking. We go to a variety of events, usually on-premise clubs and house parties. It's not universal by any means, but we tend to see many of the same people over and over and over again. Now if we were to go to a year long swing party with 200 people, all newbies, assuming about 20-25% had HSV-2 as the stats say would be the case on Day 1, isn't it reasonable to conclude that percentage would be approaching 100% by Day 365?

 

Granted, that closed system that I just described emulates the real world only to a degree, but at least for those of us who are seasoned vets it could have some bad implications. On the other hand, as I've said before, a disease that causes not a single symptom in 90% of infected people, and only an occasional, temporary, irritating rash for the other 10% really isn't that scary.

 

What say you?

[SW_PA_Couple 4,024]

Yes, scary I think. I've found it difficult to get clear information. I mentioned HSV and HPV to my PCP and to my dermatologist. The PCP blanched and sputtered his answer; the dermatologist deflected the subject by giving an evasive answer. If not even medical professionals can speak frankly about this stuff, how are non-medical people supposed to get the facts? My wife asked the gynecologist for a whole laundry list of tests and the gyno acted as if she had never had such a request before. What's with that?

 

Anyway, what I think is that for anyone is really scared of Herpes, having sex with others is not something they should be doing. The wife and I get tested not so much for ourselves but so we might know if and when it is time for us to stop and not pass things to other people.

[knb2004 364]

SW_PA_Couple said:

The wife and I get tested not so much for ourselves but so we might know if and when it is time for us to stop and not pass things to other people.

 

That would, on the surface, seem to be a kind and reasonable approach. If you pop positive, stop playing to save others the same fate. But, after further review, is it really reasonable?

 

At any given party of say 200 people, unless an argument can be made that swingers as a whole don't have the same statistics of the general population, there will be somewhere from 40-50 people who have HSV-2. (And, of course, that particular statistic could be quite low if my original hypothesis is correct.) Of those 40-50, 36-45 of them have no idea they're infected, so out of 200 people only 4-5 of them have HSV-2 and know it. Even if every person who knows they're infected decides not to participate it only reduces the actual number of HSV-2 participants by a handful.

 

So, on the one hand, it's the ethical, reasonable, and kind thing if you know you have HSV-2 to not participate, or at least participate only after full disclosure. On the other hand, one only needs to go through a relatively small handful of playmates before one has a virtual certainty of having played with someone HSV-2 positive, whether they know it or not. Frankly the expectation that it won't happen to you is, statistically speaking anyway, unreasonable.

 

I'm beginning to think an HSV-2 infection is inevitable if you participate in the Lifestyle long enough, unless either the stats are wrong, or an HSV-1 infection (which virtually all of us have) offers statistically meaningful protection.

[socolais 696]

I think your logic assumes contact with an infected playmate results in a high probability of disease transmission.

[knb2004 364]

Yes, it does, and I don't know what the reality is.

[Chicup 41]

I'm beginning to think an HSV-2 infection is inevitable if you participate in the Lifestyle long enough, unless either the stats are wrong, or an HSV-1 infection (which virtually all of us have) offers statistically meaningful protection.

 

Note my join date to the swingers board. We are clear of HSV-2.

 

Your numbers are a bit high. That 90% figure is off from everything I can find. Seropositive (which just means antibodies to it) is somewhere in the 15-60% range depending on the study, in other words it swings wildly. Since they don't test for the virus itself, it just means exposure, and it is unknown if the virus is still being shed in all asymptomatic cases (where the only detection method are serum antibodies) it is hard to say what real risks are.

 

Still there are good odds of coming into contact with it given enough time and partners.

 

While perhaps I could use the same logic and decide since it is common enough to commit the lie of omission that not disclosing HSV-2 would be, I know my wife would never swing if she knew she had HSV-2 so I won't ever be faced with such a moral quandary.

[knb2004 364]

That 90% figure is off from everything I can find.

 

The 90% figure, from what I have read, is the percentage of people who are infected who don't realize it. I do not mean 90% of people are infected.

 

Seropositive (which just means antibodies to it) is somewhere in the 15-60% range depending on the study, in other words it swings wildly.

 

Which would imply the 25% of women and 20% of men supposedly infected is, at least, a reasonable number.

 

While perhaps I could use the same logic and decide since it is common enough to commit the lie of omission that not disclosing HSV-2 would be, I know my wife would never swing if she knew she had HSV-2 so I won't ever be faced with such a moral quandary.

 

Let me be clear that I am not trying to justify playing with the knowledge that you are HSV-2 positive without disclosure. I suppose part of the reason for this thread is trying to figure out if that's reasonable or not. While I have absolutely no reason to believe I am HSV-2 positive, the more thought I've given about the statistics, the more it seems inevitable to me. After all, 90% of those who are, in fact, infected with HSV-2 can honestly say they have no reason to believe they are, so it has occurred to me that I may in fact be playing assuming I don't have it, when in fact I do.

 

Would I feel the need to disclose a cold? Probably not. A viral infection that is common and in most cases results in no symptoms? Not so sure.

[SW_PA_Couple 4,024]

I'm beginning to think an HSV-2 infection is inevitable if you participate in the Lifestyle long enough, unless either the stats are wrong, or an HSV-1 infection (which virtually all of us have) offers statistically meaningful protection.

I believe you are essentially correct. This is similar to saying that the greater number of hours you drive or ride in a motor vehicle the greater the probability you will be injured in a highway accident. Ride long enough and far enough and an injury is inevitable -- even for a person who wears seat belts and drives no faster than 30 mph.

[JustAskJulie 2,595]

While the 90% may be high, from what I've read the 20-25% number is low.

 

I think this is the point that some others like Good Times have been making in other threads. Yes, the threat is there and yes you are likely to come into contact with it while swinging. And yes you may get it and may even pass it on without ever knowing.

 

Doctors do not test for it on a typical STD panel and even if requested to test for it you could have it and show a false negative if you are not showing any signs or have not had an active infection recently (which is all the blood test shows).

 

No one can really say for 100% that they do not HSV, all they can say with certainty is that they have not ever had an active infection.

[tribbles 490]

Why do so many worry about HSV? Does it lead to cancer? Will it kill you?

 

I came to the same conclusions as knb2004

a disease that causes not a single symptom in 90% of infected people, and only an occasional, temporary, irritating rash for the other 10% really isn't that scary.

 

There really is no reason to be scared. Odds are high I've played with people who have it and will again. Maybe I have it and don't know it. Life goes on......

 

 

HPV....has the possibility to be way worse (CANCER) and no one is scared of it.....why is that?:confused::confused:

 

I'd rather someone passed me HSV with occasional, temporary, irritating rashes than give me something that can lead to cancer.....

 

Think about it....which one would you rather have if you have to get one?

 

(there is no option of none of the above in my question! Pick one-even just in your own head...what would your choice be?)

[good times 991]

I have read everything I could get my hands on regarding the subject and one thing is pretty clear, I don't think anyone can tell you what the real percentage of infected people is.

 

As far as testing goes, you can get both a false negative and a semi-false positive for HSV. What I mean by "semi-false positive" is, the blood tests done to detect HSV can only prove you have been exposed to it, it can't tell you if you are infected or not. It is possible to be exposed to it and have antibodies in your system, but not be infected in the sense that you could have an outbreak or pass it on to someone else, from what I understand. This is the reason why the medical community is so reluctant to test for it, the tests don't really mean anything. That is probably also the reason why nobody really knows how many people are actually infected.

 

Another thing to keep in mind, while a couple of studies have supposedly shown that it is possible to asymptomatically shed the virus, in other words to infect someone while showing no symptoms yourself. The general consensus among researchers is that this is either not possible or extremely rare. Most believe that shedding of the virus occurs from a couple of hours before obvious symptoms of an outbreak occurs, until healing of the outbreak is past the scabbing stage. In those cases, it is believed that the person suffering the outbreak can tell he/she has an impending outbreak before he/she actually starts shedding the virus, as it is said that he/she will experience what is most often described as a tingling or itching sensation in the area where the outbreak will occur well before shedding starts.

 

Keep in mind that in most of the studies that the claim is made that asymptomatic shedding is possible, that conclusion was based on interviewing the subjects and asking them if they saw any signs of Herpes. I don't think this is a very reliable method myself, as I have seen people at clubs before with cold sores on their lips and was surprised how few other people even noticed it. That is why I am a big advocate for oral sex as foreplay, (alright, I admit it, that isn't the only reason) it gives someone who knows what to look for a chance to check the other person out for the visual signs of HSV before actually touching genitals.

 

Finally, my personal feeling is that if HSV was as prevalent and as easy to contract as most of these so called "informational" reports would indicate, a lot more of us would have active Herpes than seems to be the case. The fact is, if the numbers were even close to being what is commonly thrown around on the internet, my wife and I should be infected, yet we are not. Why is that? My feeling is that either not as many folks are infected or actively shedding the virus as is often estimated, or it is much harder to transfer and contract the virus than is implied, or swingers are just a lot luckier than the average population. Whatever the reason, I for one, have decided while I will be educated and observant with potential play partners in order to avoid contact with it, I am not going to lose a lot of sleep worrying about it.

 

Also keep in mind that it is rare for someone to have a severe case of herpes, enough to have more than a couple outbreaks a year. In other words, odds are pretty good that if you happened to play with someone who has herpes, it is a pretty good chance they would not be shedding the virus when you were playing with them, and therefore, you would not be at risk.

[slevin 1,374]

I won't comment on the herpes side since Good times already covered that in depth. On the HPV front it is a much different situation than herpes. HPV has a vaccine for women (women 11-26 can have the vaccine), it is typically cleared from the body by the immune system within 2 years (though it can remain longer) and has multiple types (much like herpes). There are different strains that cause different things, even a woman who has a high risk strain (one that can cause cancer) it is a small percentage of those who will actually develop cancerous cells. Now, any risk of cancer is a very bad thing, but the actual risk is quite small.

 

Also, HPV can not be tested for in men. So while a woman can find out if she has it already, a man can not find out that he carries it. Since it's women that are really at risk with HPV (genital warts can affect men, but that is estimated at 1% of those infected) this is again one of those things that is important to be aware of, but there is very little than can be done to limit the risk. Get the vaccine (if you can) and if you are a woman have an HPV test done regularly.

[graygo98 148]

"...or an HSV-1 infection (which virtually all of us have) offers statistically meaningful protection".

 

Thanks, Good Times and Slevin, for some really useful information and reasoned presentation.

 

I have often wondered about the question knb raises in the snip above. Can someone who has antibodies for HSV1 contract HSV2? (Not that there is a huge difference in that either can present orally or genitally, but since most people already have been exposed to HSV1 and don't even know it, it would make the lower incidence of HSV2 easier to understand if it conferred some form of immunity.)

[Chicup 41]

Thanks, Good Times and Slevin, for some really useful information and reasoned presentation.

 

I have often wondered about the question knb raises in the snip above. Can someone who has antibodies for HSV1 contract HSV2? (Not that there is a huge difference in that either can present orally or genitally, but since most people already have been exposed to HSV1 and don't even know it, it would make the lower incidence of HSV2 easier to understand if it conferred some form of immunity.)

 

There appears to be SOME protection if you have HSV-1, but you can have both.

[Tracey2 103]

I went through a little phase of being extremely scared of contracting herpes a couple of months ago so I did huge amounts of research. I think I have to agree with a lot of what is being said here...it's not as big of a deal as it originally seems. I don't think I'm now as scared of it (as long as reasonable precautions are taken) as I was. I think the thought of contracting it scares me more because of what it might do to our little "hobby" which we've really been enjoying! In other words, I'm not as afraid of us contracting it because of the actual consequences of the rash, but what it would mean for future play, which we'd really like to continue

 

One interesting little tidbit I came across during my frantic researching involved a potential cure for herpes that some researchers think is on the horizon. It would involve actually flushing out the virus so it could be killed. Right now, what is so frustrating about herpes is that it hides in the nerves so well that it can't be killed. If they could get around that little aspect, it would be curable. Of course, no one knows how soon a cure may come about, but it was interesting.

[qreskupl7476 137]

Let's face it, most things that are fun . . . . are somewhat dangerous, and swinging is no exception. Of course condoms are a good idea, but just like any other sport/hobby in the world, safety gear such as helmets and pads only go so far. It's one of those things where each individual has to evaluate the risk vs. fun factor and decide if it's worth it to them as an individual. If one can accept the risk, there's fun to be had for sure, but just like all of the other dangerous/semi dangerous things we do for fun and in our daily lives, each person has their own threshold with regards to how much danger they're willing to accept.

 

With that being said, herpes isn't a death sentence. At worst, it's a nuisance ailment that can often be managed effectively with various treatments. Still, anyone who knows that they have herpes SHOULD make that little tidbit abundantly clear to any prospective partner prior to engaging in any sexual activity, then let said partner make up their own mind whether they're willing to accept the risk. If someone has it and doesn't know, then how can they be blamed if they pass it on?

 

STD's are indeed a real risk, but fortunately they are a risk that is quite manageable in our humble opinion. We also feel that they are a risk that is far overblown by the government/media in an effort to push a right wing moral agenda. In their defense, unwanted pregnancies and transmission of various STD's including HIV is rampant in certain segments of society so the reasoning for their efforts isn't entirely ungrounded, but we don't feel that swingers are a part of that segment of society which they target necessarily. Promiscuous high school and college students account for the vast majority of these cases in our personal experience, as well as other inexperienced young adults looking for a good time but not responsible enough to take measures to protect themselves. Not mature, intelligent adults engaging in swinging situations.

 

Personally, we're far more concerned with HPV. Many studies suggest that it's far more common than herpes, and several of it's over 100 types have been shown to cause cancer. It's much more difficult and far less commonly tested for, and other than the mostly harmless types that cause genital warts, has no obvious symptoms whatsoever.

[sassycpl 15]

Yes it's risky, we got it from swinging a few times a year and being very selective with the couples we did swing with. It's so common among people now that soon we will be posting on our AFF and SLS profiles when everyone understands. We think most people just continue to swing with it and don't tell anyone due to being passed over.

[slevin 1,374]

You should read a few of Good times posts on the subject. The estimates of how many people are infected with HSV2 is an overly conservative estimate. Hard data is difficult to come by since the only way to confirm you are actually infected with HSV2 is to swab the sores when they are present. Doing a blood test only confirms that you were exposed to the virus and have antibodies present in your blood stream. It doesn't confirm you actually have HSV2. This is also why most doctors won't bother to test for it unless specifically asked (unless you have active sores for them to swab).

 

Not trying to discuss any of your other comments regarding people swinging with or without it etc., just suggesting you check out those posts, some great info there.

[crazykatie 139]

The truth is, Herpes has not been studied to the same degree as many other viruses because it is not viewed as a significant public health risk. It does not result in death. It is asymptomatic in the majority of infected humans. And, because our society has been largely monogamous, the threat of significant spread in somewhat limited. However, here is some of what is known....

 

The virus, when it takes hold in a human, resides in the nervous tissue at the base of the spine. When an outbreak occurs, the virus spreads along the nervous system and, in some cases, results in open sores in the genital area (not necessarily on the shaft of the penis or in the vaginal canal). The virus is believe to be passed by skin contact in the genital regions and mucous membranes of the lips and mouth (probably because the large number of nerve endings in these regions increase the number of channels for the virus to invade the body and take hold). Accordingly, condoms provide varying degrees of protection against contracting the virus.

 

There are various theories as to why the disease can become chronic (reoccurring). I subscribe to the theory that the limited blood and lymphatic flows at the base of the spine limits the body’s immune response in that region inhibiting the body’s ability to completely eradicate the disease. All that is required is that a single virus remain active (live) within the body for there to be a risk of reoccurrence.

 

It you have antibodies, it means that some amount of virus has at some time entered your body. Thus, you have been infected. However, it is possible to be infected to such a slight degree that the disease did not "take hold" in your system (you carry no live virus today). Also, it is possible that even if you have an outbreak, your condition will not become chronic. Or, that your body's response to an outbreak will be sufficient to keep the virus from making it all the way down the nervous system to the skin (thus, no symptomatic outbreak).

 

Most symptomatic HSV sufferers describe a "tingling" feeling which proceeds development of a skin sore. This tingling feeling is believed to be reflective of the involvement of the nervous system in the spread of the disease to the skin. Accordingly, symptomatic sufferers who recognize this tingling can reliably predict the onset of an infective outbreak. However, the best research today suggests that a large percentage of HSV sufferers, while potentially capable of passing the disease, suffer no outward symptoms at all (or, if they had such symptoms, did not recognize them for what they were).

 

For diagnosed Herpes sufferers, there are now drugs which inhibit the virus’ ability to reoccur.

 

It has been my experience that Swingers like to view themselves as generally enlightened and non-judgmental. However, in the case of Herpes, this is simply not so. I know a number of couples who carry the Herpes antibody including some who still report recurring outbreaks. A few are open an honest about their infection. Others remain underground.

 

It is easy for those on this board to express the view that swingers should be open an honest about their condition. However, Herpes carries with it a stigma in the swinger community that spreads much faster than any virus, with much more debilitating results.

 

If one is open an honest about having the disease, in my personal experience, word of their infection quickly spreads. While everyone within a local community may not play together, almost everyone talks. In short order, everyone knows. Then, if others choose to play openly with that couple, suspicion spreads. What possible reason could someone have for playing with an infected couple unless they were infected, too.

 

Guilt by association even if that couple has done their research and come to the conclusion that they are safer playing with someone who knows they are infected and takes all reasonable precautions over playing with someone who may be infected and does not know it.

 

Herpes is to the swinger community as leprosy was in biblical times. So, the majority of infected couples we know do not openly discuss their condition. If they are not suffering the tingling of an outbreak and have no sores, they play just like everyone else. Moreover, it should be no shock that people do not ask to be tested for the antibodies. What use is knowing something that you don’t want to know in the first place. Better to be able to swing without knowledge of your true medical condition than to know something which you may be unwilling to deal with anyway.

 

We have stopped playing with unknown new couples because we despise the hypocrisy of the swinger community at large. We continue to meet friends that we have previously made and who know of our condition (only I have ever had outbreaks, but my significant other is positive for the antibody, which is no surprise). We also have been introduced to others privately with whom we will agree to play. But, we no longer go to clubs, etc.

 

But, be forewarned. The person sitting across the table from you could be an HSV sufferer. There is at least a 25% chance of that being true. The vast majority of the time, that couple will not know that they are infected (and does not want to know). As a result, they will be unable to discern whether they are at risk for spreading the disease to you. In those limited cases that you come in contact with someone who is a HSV sufferer and knows of their infection (but is not disclosing it to you), take solace in the fact that they are far more likely to know if they are infectious.

 

By the way, when you get Herpes, you should know that the person who gave it to you probably had no idea they were infected or contagious. Don't fool yourself into believing that someone had to be a lying sneak in order for you to be infected.

 

Happy hunting!

[Chicup 41]

There are various theories as to why the disease can become chronic (reoccurring). I subscribe to the theory that the limited blood and lymphatic flows at the base of the spine limits the body’s immune response in that region inhibiting the body’s ability to completely eradicate the disease. All that is required is that a single virus remain active (live) within the body for there to be a risk of reoccurrence.

 

Sounds...chiropractic. Herpes viruses hide in nerve cells, which is why they can't be eradicated by the immune system. HSV 1 can be both genital and oral, and unless it's hiding in the lower spine on the way up to the mouth, it's something else.

[crazykatie 139]

When Herpes presents orally, either because of HSV1 or 2, the source is thought to be the nervous ganglia in the head area (the trigeminal ganglia) and not the ganglia at the base of the spine.

 

As I indicated, I presented only one theory as to why the condition becomes chronic. There are many theories as the exact reasons are not well understood.

 

Dr. Klimpel writes: said:

 

Latent Infections

Latent infections result when an infecting virus (e.g., a herpesvirus) is maintained within a cell for a long time (sometimes years) without giving rise to progeny virus or damaging the cell. Cells infected in this way may express virus-specific antigens on their cell surface. Months to years after infection, the virus in these cells can be reactivated, replicate, and cause disease. The mechanisms by which viruses are maintained intracellularly for long periods and then reactivated are only incompletely understood. Many latent infections occur in sequestered areas of the body (such as the nervous system), where recognition of infected cells by the immune system is believed to be difficult. In addition, any cell that harbors a virus but does not express viral antigens is not recognized by the immune system.

 

In my view, that the virus resides in a cell alone is not enough to explain the anti-bodies' inability to completely eradicate the disease. All viruses reside in cells. In my view, if residing in a cell were enough, no one would ever get over any virus. Neither the sacral nor trigeminal ganglia have the most robust circulation (particularly, lymphatic circulation). In my view, this could explain why this tissue is not as completely saturated by antibodies as are the nerve cells leading from the ganglia to the skin (where active virus cells are completely eradicated) when an outbreak occurs. I do not subscribe to the "cell does not express viral antigens" theory in the case of ganglia and HSV2 as I believe it has been established (in separate studies) that such is not the case with HSV2 in nervous system ganglia tissue.

 

But, why Herpes is chronic really wasn't the point of my posting.

[Chicup 41]

crazykatie said:

When Herpes presents orally, either because of HSV1 or 2, the source is thought to be the nervous ganglia in the head area (the trigeminal ganglia) and not the ganglia at the base of the spine. For more information.

 

As I indicated, I presented only one theory as to why the condition becomes chronic. There are many theories as the exact reasons are not well understood.

 

In my view, that the virus resides in a cell alone is not enough to explain the anti-bodies' inability to completely eradicate the disease. All viruses reside in cells. In my view, if residing in a cell were enough, no one would ever get over any virus. Neither the sacral nor trigeminal ganglia have the most robust circulation (particularly, lymphatic circulation). In my view, this could explain why this tissue is not as completely saturated by antibodies as are the nerve cells leading from the ganglia to the skin (where active virus cells are completely eradicated) when an outbreak occurs. I do not subscribe to the "cell does not express viral antigens" theory in the case of ganglia and HSV2 as I believe it has been established (in separate studies) that such is not the case with HSV2 in nervous system ganglia tissue.

 

But, why Herpes is chronic really wasn't the point of my posting.

 

The difference is you body has no problem killing a skill cell or blood cell, but gets rather squirrelly about killing non-regenerating nerve cells. The virus has found a safe home since the effect of the body eradicating the virus is worse than the virus itself.

 

Being one of my specialty areas is the head and neck, and I routinely need to deal with infections in said area, I'd expect to see more chronic hard to cure infections if your blood theory were true. I don't. While the exact blood supply of the terminal ganglia is very hard to work out due to the complex anatomy of the area, it's more famous for the ample blood supply triggering such issues such as trigeminal neuralgia. The theory is that basically too much is being pushed through one foramen and the artery in the area when blood pressure increases causes pressure and therefore sensory pain signals from CN5. This is not the only possible cause of trigeminal neuralgia but it does seem to be the cause in many.

 

Herpes is just a special virus, it found a great place to hide, and gives us outbreaks long after the acute stage because it can. Herpes zoster, chicken pox, hides in the nerve roots and later comes out in some people to give them shingles, HSV-1 hides in the nerve roots and gives us cold sores and sometimes genital sores, HSV-2 hides in the nerve roots and gives us a more annoying genital sore and even oral sores.

 

I do need to look into the shingles vaccine, I have to wonder if there is some hope for a HSV-1/2 vaccine in the near future.

[crazykatie 139]

I understand that the best current thinking is that the body, not wanting to destroy nerve cells to eliminate the virus, instead floods the infected cells with an enzyme that inhibits replication. One theory has the disease reoccurring when something inhibits the immune system's delivery of the enzyme to the infected cells (something suppresses the body’s immune response).

[cplnuswing 4,713]

Herpes is a popular topic, and this old thread is one of the better discussions I've run into here. It raises a lot of good questions so curious to see what the current thinking on it may be.

[NWAtlSwing 522]

That would, on the surface, seem to be a kind and reasonable approach. If you pop positive, stop playing to save others the same fate. But, after further review, is it really reasonable?

 

At any given party of say 200 people, unless an argument can be made that swingers as a whole don't have the same statistics of the general population, there will be somewhere from 40-50 people who have HSV-2. (And, of course, that particular statistic could be quite low if my original hypothesis is correct.) Of those 40-50, 36-45 of them have no idea they're infected, so out of 200 people only 4-5 of them have HSV-2 and know it. Even if every person who knows they're infected decides not to participate it only reduces the actual number of HSV-2 participants by a handful.

 

So, on the one hand, it's the ethical, reasonable, and kind thing if you know you have HSV-2 to not participate, or at least participate only after full disclosure. On the other hand, one only needs to go through a relatively small handful of playmates before one has a virtual certainty of having played with someone HSV-2 positive, whether they know it or not. Frankly the expectation that it won't happen to you is, statistically speaking anyway, unreasonable.

 

I'm beginning to think an HSV-2 infection is inevitable if you participate in the Lifestyle long enough, unless either the stats are wrong, or an HSV-1 infection (which virtually all of us have) offers statistically meaningful protection.

 

How do they know the infection rate, if people are asymptomatic?

[funcoupledayton 2,708]

How do they know the infection rate, if people are asymptomatic?

 

Scientists recruit a large group of people for a study. They test their blood and ask about their history. They extrapolate the data to the larger population.