(US) Child contracts herpes from used hotel condom

southsiderosie · 22-09-2010 11:04PM

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

If whatever idiot that used the thing put it in the bin in the first place it would never have happened.

If whatever idiot that was paid to clean the room afterwards had done their job, none of this would have happened.

hypervalve · 22-09-2010 11:12PM

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Did I imply that he might have caught it from the used condom?

No.

Back to your A-Bomb, Herr Oppenheimer.;)

Do you think he might have an unrelated history of high risk sexual behaviour that wasn't referred to in the article?

PeterIanStaker · 22-09-2010 11:16PM

Another Little Johnny story

The Highwayman · 22-09-2010 11:18PM

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Did I imply that he might have caught it from the used condom?

No.

Back to your A-Bomb, Herr Oppenheimer.;)

Yes you did imply it.

Working hard on my bomb maybe you can have a word with the man upstairs need about 5kg of Uranium to finish it. If he cant do it tell batman I'll settle for Plutonium.

fonecrusher1 · 22-09-2010 11:24PM

southsiderosie wrote: »

If whatever idiot that was paid to clean the room afterwards had done their job, none of this would have happened.

Its possible the condom was partially flushed & remained unseen until maybe a few hours later it emerged after the cleaners were finished. Hence my first comment, just throw it in the bin.

FFS! who throws a rubber in the toilet? :pac:

Red Hand · 22-09-2010 11:34PM

hypervalve wrote: »

Do you think he might have an unrelated history of high risk sexual behaviour that wasn't referred to in the article?

Just putting it out there...

The Highwayman wrote: »

Yes you did imply it.

I implied/didn't imply several things at once with my post, one of them directly above. ^

Working hard on my bomb maybe you can have a word with the man upstairs need about 5kg of Uranium to finish it. If he cant do it tell batman I'll settle for Plutonium.

Why the middleman of atomic forces? I can get you a sweet deal with the Boss for some fire and brimstone instead. Reduce a Hiromshima to a mere Gommorah (which incidently sounds like a venereal disease) without the radioactivity.

starbelgrade · 22-09-2010 11:44PM

southsiderosie wrote: »

If whatever idiot that was paid to clean the room afterwards had done their job, none of this would have happened.

If people refrained from having sex, there would have been no used condom in the room & the kid wouldn't have existed and none of this would have happened.

RMD · 22-09-2010 11:57PM

starbelgrade wrote: »

If people refrained from having sex, there would have been no used condom in the room & the kid wouldn't have existed and none of this would have happened.

Yes but what he said is a pretty normal argument. Yours is just ridiculous. A cleaners job is to clean, if the room wasn't properly cleaned Ie a dirty johnny was still there that's the cleaner's fault.

starbelgrade · 23-09-2010 12:01AM

RMD wrote: »

Yes but what he said is a pretty normal argument. Yours is just ridiculous. A cleaners job is to clean, if the room wasn't properly cleaned Ie a dirty johnny was still there that's the cleaner's fault.

Ya think?

colly10 · 23-09-2010 12:01AM

He calls his granny mommy

southsiderosie · 23-09-2010 12:09AM

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Its possible the condom was partially flushed & remained unseen until maybe a few hours later it emerged after the cleaners were finished. Hence my first comment, just throw it in the bin.

FFS! who throws a rubber in the toilet? :pac:

One would think that even a 4 year old would know not to fish things out of the toilet and put them in his mouth. If he's doing that, them mommy probably doesn't want to be kissing him anyway, yuck.

Bosco boy · 23-09-2010 12:41AM

The Highwayman wrote: »

Yes you did imply it.

Working hard on my bomb maybe you can have a word with the man upstairs need about 5kg of Uranium to finish it. If he cant do it tell batman I'll settle for Plutonium.

Hopefully you get what your looking for and when you do sit on it seconds before it goes off!!!

Royal Irish · 23-09-2010 01:53AM

starbelgrade wrote: »

What the f*ck did they test him for HIV for? Are they retarded?

Thats abit of a retarded comment. Why wouldnt they test their child for HIV in this situation?

hypervalve · 23-09-2010 02:01AM

Royal Irish wrote: »

Thats abit of a retarded comment. Why wouldnt they test their child for HIV in this situation?

Because there's no way he could have contracted HIV like this

Orange69 · 23-09-2010 02:02AM

hypervalve wrote: »

Because there's no way he could have contracted HIV like this

Ummm, yes he could, if he had an abrasion on his lips or mouth. Sucks to be him and you.

Royal Irish · 23-09-2010 02:11AM

hypervalve wrote: »

Because there's no way he could have contracted HIV like this

Yes he could have caught HIV from this. All it would have taken is for HIV positive semen from the condom to get into a open cut or bleeding gums in his mouth.

If it was your child in this situation, you wouldnt get a HIV test done? Good parenting :rolleyes:

hypervalve · 23-09-2010 02:17AM

Orange69 wrote: »

Ummm, yes he could, if he had an abrasion on his lips or mouth

There's still no way he could have caught it. I'd be willing to bet that it was his parents and not the doctor that insisted on a HIV test. I think people can be overly paranoid about HIV because of the stigma attached to the disease and the disproportionate level of media attention it receives.

ballsymchugh · 23-09-2010 02:29AM

hypervalve wrote: »

There's still no way he could have caught it. I'd be willing to bet that it was his parents and not the doctor that insisted on a HIV test. I think people can be overly paranoid about HIV because of the stigma attached to the disease and the disproportionate level of media attention it receives.

given that HIV is a virus and viruses don't have much of a chance outside a living host, then you're right, the risk is between minimal and none.
but i'd say it was the doctors that insisted on it. another test to add to the insurance claim so more funds for them. there's probably a medico legal element to it too.

foxinsox · 23-09-2010 05:14AM

hypervalve wrote: »

There's still no way he could have caught it. I'd be willing to bet that it was his parents and not the doctor that insisted on a HIV test. I think people can be overly paranoid about HIV because of the stigma attached to the disease and the disproportionate level of media attention it receives.

There is a teeny % of a chance that HIV could be passed on this way, it is a very small chance, quite unlikely, but still possible.

If it was my child I would be very worried and concerned...

If it happened to you, or you cut yourself on a discarded needle, would you be worried?

I know I'd be terrified, regardless of media coverage.

old_aussie · 23-09-2010 06:22AM

hypervalve wrote: »

Because there's no way he could have contracted HIV like this

They say ignorance is bliss, go read a medical book on HIV transmission

http://www.avert.org/hiv-aids-transmission.htm

Although it is possible to become infected with HIV through oral sex, the risk of becoming infected in this way is much lower than the risk of infection via unprotected sexual intercourse with a man or woman.
When giving oral sex to a man (sucking or licking a man's penis) a person could become infected with HIV if infected semen came into contact with damaged and receding gums, or any cuts or sores they might have in their mouth.

Vorsprung · 23-09-2010 06:32AM

And if this kid has contracted HIV, the test may not be positive for months.

Mr Benevolent · 23-09-2010 07:37AM

Wait, what kind of parent kisses their kid on the mouth?

phill106 · 23-09-2010 09:44AM

Confab wrote: »

Wait, what kind of parent kisses their kid on the mouth?

Loving ones?

Uriel. · 23-09-2010 09:56AM

The child had no chance of contracting HIV in this instance. HIV does not live for long outside of the body, HIV through ingesting infected semen is also highly unlikely.

1 in 50,000 chance (or higher) in oral sex with a verified infected partner.

So the child's chances - less than 1 in 50,000 cos he didn't have oral sex, 0.01% chance that the person who used the comdom was infected... oh finally HIV lives a matter of minutes to a couple of hours maximum outside of the body and/or labratory environments.

Testing was not necessary in this instance for anything only peace of mind.

kylith · 23-09-2010 10:42AM

If it's oral herpes, i.e. coldsores, the case will be thrown out of court because he could have picked up the infection from another child, cutlery or glassware used by someone with a coldsore, or a dozen other places.

We've had people look for money from us because they say their child's gotten verrucae from our changing rooms, we just refer them to literature that explains that the pappillomavirus lives just about everywhere, and that there's no way to prove where it was gotten. Then, when they're gone, I laugh at them.

Procasinator · 23-09-2010 10:45AM

Uriel. wrote: »

Testing was not necessary in this instance for anything only peace of mind.

Yeah, exactly. Peace of mind. That's a good reason.

They (the doctors) were also right to test the kid for many diseases, given the story, to see if there wasn't something more sinister (such as the kid being abused) and the parents making up stories.

I know the kid contracting HIV was extremely unlikely, but to make an obligatory XKCD reference:
http://xkcd.com/795/

Nijmegen · 23-09-2010 10:50AM

Uriel. wrote: »

Testing was not necessary in this instance for anything only peace of mind.

Do you have children?

Mention the words "HIV" and "My child" together and suddenly 0.00000001% of a chance doesn't seem such slim odds until you know otherwise.

23-09-2010 10:54AM

AFAIK it takes several months to test positive for herpes, so if he tested positive after a month, then he probably didn't get it from the condom. And more than half of the population has oral herpes, so how do they know he didn't already have it?

Sofa King Great · 23-09-2010 11:03AM

With all this debate on HIV people seem to be forgetting the fact that the kid who calls his granny mommy had a used condom in his mouth. Nasty!!

Procasinator · 23-09-2010 11:05AM

Emilee Steep Lettuce wrote: »

AFAIK it takes several months to test positive for herpes, so if he tested positive after a month, then he probably didn't get it from the condom. And more than half of the population has oral herpes, so how do they know he didn't already have it?

Considering it went active (he had blisters/coldsores), I don't think this applies. Maybe that would be the case if it was dormant/incubating.

I'm pretty sure an outbreak after a month is far from abnormal.

(US) Child contracts herpes from used hotel condom

Comments