(US) Child contracts herpes from used hotel condom

23-09-2010 11:26AM

Procasinator wrote: »

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.

No, what I mean is, if they took a blood test a month after his exposure and he tested positive (i.e. had antibodies for Herpes Simplex Type 1), he would be very unlikely to have caught it from that condom. It takes several months to develop antibodies. Even if he had active sores, the test would probably have come back negative if he'd only just been exposed. Hence, if he did test positive in such a short space of time, it's much more likely that he had the virus all along.

Uriel. · 23-09-2010 11:36AM

Nijmegen wrote: »

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.

Does it matter if I do?

Testing was not required from a medical/scientific standpoint.

Peace of mind was the only reason test. End of Story. That's all I am saying. The vast majoirty of people who get tested for HIV have no discernible risk.

Uriel. · 23-09-2010 11:37AM

Procasinator wrote: »

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.

8 to 15 days is the usual time associated for a primary break out after first infection.

Did he test positive for HSV 1 or HSV 2?

Uriel. · 23-09-2010 11:40AM

Emilee Steep Lettuce wrote: »

No, what I mean is, if they took a blood test a month after his exposure and he tested positive (i.e. had antibodies for Herpes Simplex Type 1), he would be very unlikely to have caught it from that condom. It takes several months to develop antibodies. Even if he had active sores, the test would probably have come back negative if he'd only just been exposed. Hence, if he did test positive in such a short space of time, it's much more likely that he had the virus all along.

The most usual way for testing / diagnosing (apart from visual inspection) of any HSV infection is a swab of the newly formed blisters/sores. I would assume that the test was performed via swab (sorry can't remember from the linked article if they mentioned blood tests).

If the kid had a HSV 1 infection it most likely to have already been in his system rather than a newly acquired infection. If it is HSV 1 then he really has nothing to worry about (80% or more of population have it). It/s pretty normal.

Uriel. · 23-09-2010 11:44AM

hypervalve wrote: »

If I cut myself with a discarded needle I'd be slightly more worried about catching it than if I for some reason tried to blow up a used condom.

For the latter scenario I probably would consider getting tested, because to be honest I'm not above societies phobia of HIV. I don't think I would be in the slightest bit worried though, because the rational side of my brain would know that there is no chance I contracted HIV, which is hard to catch at the best of times.

I'm not a parent but if it happened to my child I'd imagine paternal instinct would magnify the perceived risk.

Testing would only be necessary to allay irrational fear in my opinion. But this has its own value.

I agree. Someone who asks the question "would you get tested following a nick from a needle etc..." in comparison to geting tested from putting a used condom in their mouth really shows they have no understanding of HIV and how it is transmitted.

Due to the small, thin nature of a syringe needle, dried fluids (blood, sweat, saliva etc...) can cause an almost air tight compartment within the needle chasm. This means that HIV can live for much longer in this environment than out in the open or in/on a used condom and therefore the risk increases quite substantially. Although it depends how long the needle has been there - it increases the living time of HIV but not indefinitely.

23-09-2010 12:14PM

Uriel. wrote: »

The most usual way for testing / diagnosing (apart from visual inspection) of any HSV infection is a swab of the newly formed blisters/sores. I would assume that the test was performed via swab (sorry can't remember from the linked article if they mentioned blood tests).

If the kid had a HSV 1 infection it most likely to have already been in his system rather than a newly acquired infection. If it is HSV 1 then he really has nothing to worry about (80% or more of population have it). It/s pretty normal.

Yep, but as you say, that wouldn't tell them when he acquired it. The easiest way to establish whether or not he'd got it from the condom would be to do a swab AND a blood test. Positive swab + negative blood test = the condom was probably the cause. Positive swab + positive blood test = he most likely had the virus already. I don't know why the parents are kicking up such a fuss either way. It's a cold sore for God's sake!

Uriel. · 23-09-2010 12:24PM

Emilee Steep Lettuce wrote: »

Yep, but as you say, that wouldn't tell them when he acquired it. The easiest way to establish whether or not he'd got it from the condom would be to do a swab AND a blood test. Positive swab + negative blood test = the condom was probably the cause. Positive swab + positive blood test = he most likely had the virus already. I don't know why the parents are kicking up such a fuss either way. It's a cold sore for God's sake!

Completely agree with you.

HSV 1 is not a big deal. The kid might have a number of break outs but by the time he is a teenager he'll prbably get 1 or 2 every year or less at most. Tis a joke. I think I have had one "cold sore" in the past 6 years.

HIV should never have been mentioned in the article either. It sounds like sensationalism or gearing up for a compo case. Why not test for syphilis, chlamydia, gonorohea etc...

Procasinator · 23-09-2010 12:32PM

Uriel. wrote: »

Why not test for syphilis, chlamydia, gonorohea etc...

I assume they did, the article said an STD test was done.

HIV is just the scariest and newsworthy. :P

BananaDonkey · 23-09-2010 12:47PM

So thats where i left it.......

Uriel. · 23-09-2010 12:51PM

Procasinator wrote: »

I assume they did, the article said an STD test was done.

HIV is just the scariest and newsworthy. :P

And also the hardest to "pick up"

These kinda of occurences and this kind of reporting don't help people who are trying to live a "normal" life with HIV. Yes HIV is a scary disease and very difficult to manage but it's not a case of "jeez, don't pat that guy on the back or you'l get the Aids and die in a week" kinda scenario.

23-09-2010 12:54PM

Uriel. wrote: »

And also the hardest to "pick up"

These kinda of occurences and this kind of reporting don't help people who are trying to live a "normal" life with HIV. Yes HIV is a scary disease and very difficult to manage but it's not a case of "jeez, don't pat that guy on the back or you'l get the Aids and die in a week" kinda scenario.

At the same time, I'd be petrified if I somehow ingested some stranger's semen (not even going to try making a joke

). It's hard to be rational at a time like that.

Uriel. · 23-09-2010 01:01PM

Emilee Steep Lettuce wrote: »

At the same time, I'd be petrified if I somehow ingested some stranger's semen (not even going to try making a joke ). It's hard to be rational at a time like that.

Oh I know, rationality (lack of) is the biggest issue here... well actually it's the symptom of poor education (not the individual's education) from the Government/WHO/Medical profession in terms informing people about HIV in full and practical terms.

STI clinics across the country are jammed with people who have an irrational fear and no medical basis for requiring a test. I know the story stems from the US, but it's the same idea here, awareness of the true HIV facts is sooo poor that so much stress, irrationality and waste of money ensues for people who think they are at risk

23-09-2010 01:06PM

Uriel. wrote: »

Oh I know, rationality (lack of) is the biggest issue here... well actually it's the symptom of poor education (not the individual's education) from the Government/WHO/Medical profession in terms informing people about HIV in full and practical terms.

STI clinics across the country are jammed with people who have an irrational fear and no medical basis for requiring a test. I know the story stems from the US, but it's the same idea here, awareness of the true HIV facts is sooo poor that so much stress, irrationality and waste of money ensues for people who think they are at risk

I'm not sure I can agree with that. If anything, I find a lot of people, in Ireland especially, don't get tested when they probably should. I know more than a few people who have been diagnosed with STD's without having any major risk factors. One was in a long term relationship and had been cheated on, another thought she had always had protected sex but a condom must have burst somewhere along the way without her realising. I have to go to a GUM clinic here in the UK sometimes for non-STD related issues, and the attitude there is, if there is even the tiniest smidgen of doubt, test. They'd rather people came in who probably didn't have anything than deal with the effects of untreated STD's or a syphilis epidemic.

Uriel. · 23-09-2010 01:13PM

Emilee Steep Lettuce wrote: »

I'm not sure I can agree with that. If anything, I find a lot of people, in Ireland especially, don't get tested when they probably should. I know more than a few people who have been diagnosed with STD's without having any major risk factors. One was in a long term relationship and had been cheated on, another thought she had always had protected sex but a condom must have burst somewhere along the way without her realising. I have to go to a GUM clinic here in the UK sometimes for non-STD related issues, and the attitude there is, if there is even the tiniest smidgen of doubt, test. They'd rather people came in who probably didn't have anything than deal with the effects of untreated STD's or a syphilis epidemic.

I am speaking specifically of HIV.

Believe me, there a huge numbers of people going for tests for HIV, after having protected vaginal sex. Madness.

Everyone should get tested every few years taking into account their circumstances. BUt for most there is no need to test (for HIV) after one specific incident.

Ghost Train · 23-09-2010 01:27PM

How do you dispose of a used condom?
All used condoms should be wrapped in tissue or toilet paper and thrown in the bin. Condoms should not be flushed down the toilet as they may cause blockages in the sewage system.

http://www.avert.org/condom.htm

hidinginthebush · 23-09-2010 01:33PM

mikom wrote: »

Herpes simplex 10.

http://static.stuff.co.nz/1246184874/610/2547610.jpg

23-09-2010 01:41PM

Uriel. wrote: »

I am speaking specifically of HIV.

Believe me, there a huge numbers of people going for tests for HIV, after having protected vaginal sex. Madness.

Everyone should get tested every few years taking into account their circumstances. BUt for most there is no need to test (for HIV) after one specific incident.

If it's with a stranger and you have no idea of that person's HIV status, I don't see how it's madness. I'm sure they realise there's a low chance, but it seems more responsible to get tested than to take the risk of giving it to someone else, no matter how tiny. Any time I've been tested, I've been urged to take the HIV test even though I said I didn't think there was any need. I don't see how this is a problem. As many doctors have told me, the people who should be worrying about it are usually those who don't go to get tested.

Procasinator · 23-09-2010 02:15PM

Uriel. wrote: »

And also the hardest to "pick up"

These kinda of occurences and this kind of reporting don't help people who are trying to live a "normal" life with HIV. Yes HIV is a scary disease and very difficult to manage but it's not a case of "jeez, don't pat that guy on the back or you'l get the Aids and die in a week" kinda scenario.

Preaching to the converted.

foxinsox · 23-09-2010 02:19PM

Uriel. wrote: »

I agree. Someone who asks the question "would you get tested following a nick from a needle etc..." in comparison to geting tested from putting a used condom in their mouth really shows they have no understanding of HIV and how it is transmitted.

Due to the small, thin nature of a syringe needle, dried fluids (blood, sweat, saliva etc...) can cause an almost air tight compartment within the needle chasm. This means that HIV can live for much longer in this environment than out in the open or in/on a used condom and therefore the risk increases quite substantially. Although it depends how long the needle has been there - it increases the living time of HIV but not indefinitely.

Within this thread, that someone was me! I would say that I personally have an excellent understanding of HIV and how it is transmitted! I understand the chance of getting HIV in this case is extremely unlikely, but it is NOT impossible.

From your post it seems that it may also be possible then that an almost air tight compartment could be achieved within the condom? Maybe if a condom was tied? Would that increase the risk? The "bodily fluids" could be in air tight compartment within the condom..

Hypothetical Situation:

We don't know who owns the "bodily fluids".

We don't know how long they have been there.

So I would imagine a definite yes or no cannot be given without a medical test.

I don't think it is unreasonable to want to be tested in a case like above.

Uriel. · 23-09-2010 02:44PM

Emilee Steep Lettuce wrote: »

If it's with a stranger and you have no idea of that person's HIV status, I don't see how it's madness. I'm sure they realise there's a low chance, but it seems more responsible to get tested than to take the risk of giving it to someone else, no matter how tiny. Any time I've been tested, I've been urged to take the HIV test even though I said I didn't think there was any need. I don't see how this is a problem. As many doctors have told me, the people who should be worrying about it are usually those who don't go to get tested.

Well on the madness thing, HIV cannot break through intact latex. so if you have sex with a stranger, use a condom (correctly) then you have no HIV concern. End of really.

Your example of you being asked to take a test while you're there getting tested for other issues is fine. Of course you should say yes, no problem with that.

The problem here though is that we don't live in a perfect world. There are two huge problems which are highlighted in the OPs article.

1. Unsystematic testing:
Irrational fears leading to HIV testing after one specific incident. Condom protected sex, fingering, "getting a small bit of semen on my lip", (all the sort of people who arrive at STI clinics. Ireland has very limited public resources for testing. Look at the GUIDE Clinic any day of the week. ALl fo these cases of no risk appearing clogs up the system and blocks true and genuine risky cases. This is what causes major difficulty in the system.

2. Irrationality.
Irrational fears like those described in "1" above actually have people spending three months (or 6 months or a year or longer) going through pure mental agony and stress, which can and does cause long-term mental health damage (phobio), anxiety disorders. Look at the forums on MedHelp for an idea of the people I am talking about here.

Treat your sexual health like you would a car, yes have your check ups, once a year, every two years etc... depending on your risk factors. But don't go running to a clinic after every non-event.

Awareness of the real risks and the safety/precautions one needs to take would relieve a lot of this.

Having these irrational fears of infection like has been highlighted in the OP also goes a long way to creating (read as amplifying) the stigmata associated with ahving an STI

Uriel. · 23-09-2010 02:52PM

foxinsox wrote: »

Within this thread, that someone was me! I would say that I personally have an excellent understanding of HIV and how it is transmitted! I understand the chance of getting HIV in this case is extremely unlikely, but it is NOT impossible.

From your post it seems that it may also be possible then that an almost air tight compartment could be achieved within the condom? Maybe if a condom was tied? Would that increase the risk? The "bodily fluids" could be in air tight compartment within the condom..

Hypothetical Situation:

We don't know who owns the "bodily fluids".

We don't know how long they have been there.

So I would imagine a definite yes or no cannot be given without a medical test.

I don't think it is unreasonable to want to be tested in a case like above.

As regards your question of the condom being tied afterwards? no that would not provide an airtight compartment. With IV, the HIV lives in the blood longer than in semen, blood provides a more suitable living environment for HIV than semen. the reason why HIV can live longer in a needle is because of the thinness of the compartment and the housing element of the HIV being blood. A condom tied or untied does not provide anything like the kind of environment that a needle does.

All of the above is of course notwithstanding the fact that HIV is many many many many many times more transmittable through blood than it is through ingestion. A needle entering the skin, then vein, muscle, tissue, tendon provides an airtight release of potential blood and HIV particles into the blood stream... the same cannot be said of "drinking" semen from a used condom.

Your "excellent" knowledge of HIV transmission is quite frankly scary!

norrie rugger · 23-09-2010 02:58PM

Mrmoe wrote: »

I think the odds of that happing are extremely low. It could happen if the child had bleeding gums but unlikely at that age. I don' think it has ever been proven that HIV can be transmitted through oral sex or orally transmitting body fluids such as semen.

Cut lip, previously bitten his cheek/tounge?
Could be many reasons why there is a transmission risk

norrie rugger · 23-09-2010 03:14PM

Uriel. wrote: »

As regards your question of the condom being tied afterwards? no that would not provide an airtight compartment. With IV, the HIV lives in the blood longer than in semen, blood provides a more suitable living environment for HIV than semen. the reason why HIV can live longer in a needle is because of the thinness of the compartment and the housing element of the HIV being blood. A condom tied or untied does not provide anything like the kind of environment that a needle does.

All of the above is of course notwithstanding the fact that HIV is many many many many many times more transmittable through blood than it is through ingestion. A needle entering the skin, then vein, muscle, tissue, tendon provides an airtight release of potential blood and HIV particles into the blood stream... the same cannot be said of "drinking" semen from a used condom.

Your "excellent" knowledge of HIV transmission is quite frankly scary!

I would be more worried that they may not know how old the condom was.
People leaving the room that morning could have had sex, left the condom, room "cleaned" and new people checked in within 2 hours.

It is not easy to catch and the chances are small but it would be irresponsible of the team not to test for all possibilities

23-09-2010 04:15PM

Uriel. wrote: »

Well on the madness thing, HIV cannot break through intact latex. so if you have sex with a stranger, use a condom (correctly) then you have no HIV concern. End of really.

Yes, and all it takes is one slip or an unnoticed break and there's exposure. I know several people who contracted chlamydia despite having used protection - something obviously went wrong. They could have got HIV the same way.

1. Unsystematic testing:
Irrational fears leading to HIV testing after one specific incident. Condom protected sex, fingering, "getting a small bit of semen on my lip", (all the sort of people who arrive at STI clinics. Ireland has very limited public resources for testing. Look at the GUIDE Clinic any day of the week. ALl fo these cases of no risk appearing clogs up the system and blocks true and genuine risky cases. This is what causes major difficulty in the system.

I do get your point, but there IS a risk in the scenarios you describe, even if it's a tiny one. It's the sort of thing where I might tell someone else they were being crazy, but if it happened to me, I'd probably worry. I'd certainly worry if my child got some stranger's semen in their mouth.

2. Irrationality.
Irrational fears like those described in "1" above actually have people spending three months (or 6 months or a year or longer) going through pure mental agony and stress, which can and does cause long-term mental health damage (phobio), anxiety disorders. Look at the forums on MedHelp for an idea of the people I am talking about here.

I agree with this bit. I do now have an anxiety disorder resulting from a doctor trying to convince me I had an STD I didn't have. But I still think getting tested for peace of mind is fine once there is some real risk.

Having these irrational fears of infection like has been highlighted in the OP also goes a long way to creating (read as amplifying) the stigmata associated with ahving an STI

I just don't see what's so irrational. Thinking you have HIV from lying on a hotel bedspread is irrational. Thinking you have HIV from putting a semen soaked condom in your mouth.....not so crazy. Sure, the chance is small. But if it were my child, I think I'd get the test done. Remember in most countries, getting these tests is no hassle at all. At my GUM place you can walk in and get a 3 minute HIV test for free if you feel like it. They figure that people aren't going to go in and get it done for the laugh, they actually have the opposite problem of people convincing themselves they don't have it when they do.

Uriel. · 23-09-2010 05:30PM

Emilee Steep Lettuce wrote: »

Yes, and all it takes is one slip or an unnoticed break and there's exposure. I know several people who contracted chlamydia despite having used protection - something obviously went wrong. They could have got HIV the same way.

I do get your point, but there IS a risk in the scenarios you describe, even if it's a tiny one. It's the sort of thing where I might tell someone else they were being crazy, but if it happened to me, I'd probably worry. I'd certainly worry if my child got some stranger's semen in their mouth.

I agree with this bit. I do now have an anxiety disorder resulting from a doctor trying to convince me I had an STD I didn't have. But I still think getting tested for peace of mind is fine once there is some real risk.

I just don't see what's so irrational. Thinking you have HIV from lying on a hotel bedspread is irrational. Thinking you have HIV from putting a semen soaked condom in your mouth.....not so crazy. Sure, the chance is small. But if it were my child, I think I'd get the test done. Remember in most countries, getting these tests is no hassle at all. At my GUM place you can walk in and get a 3 minute HIV test for free if you feel like it. They figure that people aren't going to go in and get it done for the laugh, they actually have the opposite problem of people convincing themselves they don't have it when they do.

Izzy in regards your last point first, other countries have things a lot better than Ireland, I know that, but I am talking primarily of here. Unless you go private you can't just walk in off the street in the vast majority of places.

As regards condom breakage. COndoms are designed to break/tear/rip wide open during intercourse if a weakness in the latex occurs. The "pin hole" thing is a myth. YOu cannot have a an unnoticable break in the condom unless you choose not to notice it or you are so high/drunk that you dont know what is going on.

In terms of slips, as far as HIV is concerned only the Head of the penis needs to be covered (unless there are wounds/sores etc.. on the shaft). If a condom slips that much that the head is exposed, you WILL notice it. Fair enough you may not notice it until after intercourse is finished (same with a breakage btw) but you will notice. ANd that is not protected sex. You see, condom usage is not "protected" sex. Proper condom usage is protected sex. A slip or a breakage is unprotected sex and then you decide whether you are at risk and decide to test or not.

The other element (a large one too) is truth. People generally don't tell the truth when it comes to their sexual practices/incidents/experiences. Proper condom usage means you will not get chlamydia/gonorohea/HIV etc... Take for example, one girl I had to deal with. She was just finished her short course of antibiotics for a chlamydia infection. I was discussing safe sex with her. "oh no, we used a condom and it didnt break or slip or anything". ME: "Right well if you are sure you got chlamydia from this guy then something went wrong somwhere, you cant get it while using a condom". "nope we definitely used one".ME:"Explain to me what you engaged in that night" " he went down on me, I didn't go down on him though, then we got busy with our hands, he stuck his penis inside me for 30 seconds or so without much thrusting and then we wanted to be safe so we put on a condom" BINGO! yeah you used the condom correctly but putting the penis inside you unprotected for a period of time opens you up to a chlamydia infection. There's your answer. THis happens all the time.

Ps. I am not saying I wouldn't worry if it was my child in the situation. but it is an irrational worry in reality. And the sooner the better the Government, CDC, ECDC and WHO start to properly bring about awareness of the true risk factors of STIs the worse off we all are.

foxinsox · 23-09-2010 08:01PM

Uriel. wrote: »

As regards your question of the condom being tied afterwards? no that would not provide an airtight compartment. With IV, the HIV lives in the blood longer than in semen, blood provides a more suitable living environment for HIV than semen. the reason why HIV can live longer in a needle is because of the thinness of the compartment and the housing element of the HIV being blood. A condom tied or untied does not provide anything like the kind of environment that a needle does.

All of the above is of course notwithstanding the fact that HIV is many many many many many times more transmittable through blood than it is through ingestion. A needle entering the skin, then vein, muscle, tissue, tendon provides an airtight release of potential blood and HIV particles into the blood stream... the same cannot be said of "drinking" semen from a used condom.

Your "excellent" knowledge of HIV transmission is quite frankly scary!

My excellent knowledge is more than capable of keeping me protected!

I wouldn't normally frequent hotel rooms and ingest bodily fluids from a used condom so I wouldn't claim to have excellent knowledge on this particular situation.

So I respect your knowledge and points you've made as you obivously know a lot about it.

I wrote the hypothetical scenario to make a point.

All I am saying is that it is NOT impossible that the child could contract HIV in this case. I've said a few times that it is extremely unlikely and would be very very rare for it to happen.

But I still stand by my point that if it was me or my child I would be worried sick.

I do understand that some people are very unaware of the facts about HIV transmission and frankly I find that very scary!

Daroxtar · 23-09-2010 08:12PM

So tell us OP, what did you google to find a story like this?

Magaa · 23-09-2010 08:16PM

Thats horrible

Btwndeyes · 23-09-2010 08:21PM

southsiderosie wrote: »

Doubtful.

Ya and condoms which are 99- positive always stop the semen, so youd rather take the 1% chance that the kids got it and not know to give him life saving drugs.
Great parent you'll be.

slimjimmc · 23-09-2010 10:11PM

old_aussie wrote: »

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.

The only thing the 4yr old kid was blowing was a used rubber which he mistook for a balloon so that quotation is not appropriate to what happened. However the question "Can HIV be transmitted outside the body?" (further down your link) is appropriate to this cirumstance and although infection by this method is not totally impossible, it is very very unlikely.

(US) Child contracts herpes from used hotel condom

Comments