Title update: Child gets needlestick injury on Dublin Bus

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The risk of contracting an STI from a broken beer bottle is negligible compared with the risk of contracting one from a used needle.

This is essentially the crux of the matter and why needles bear particular alarm compared with other litter. When heroin spread through Dublin in the 1980s, poor education combined with limited access to clean needles and knowledge of sterilisation to create a concurrent epidemic of STDs among addicts. HIV is the most feared of these, but (I could stand corrected here?) as far as I know, Hepatitis was the particular menace among Dublin's addicts. Some such STDs can be passed from generation to generation and many of those who would have contracted lifelong viruses are still alive today, coupled with the sad fact that even though hygiene and access to needle exchanges etc has improved, needle sharing is probably nowhere near zero yet and therefore there are probably still new addicts contracting new infections.

For this reason, coupled with how deeply a needle can penetrate compared with broken glass or shards of can (that's what they're designed for, after all), it's perfectly legitimate for dirty needles to command more fear and demand more action from society than broken glass. While both are undoubtedly a health hazard and both indicate people who are careless assholes (given, as I said before, the multitude of public bins in Dublin's inner city), of the two, I for one would be far more terrified for my safety after having been pricked with a needle as opposed to a shard of glass.

Hepatitis B Virus (HBV)

Health care workers who have received hepatitis B vaccine and have developed immunity to the virus are at virtually no risk for infection. For an unvaccinated person, the risk from a single needlestick or a cut exposure to HBV-infected blood ranges from 6%–30% and depends on the hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) status of the source individual. Individuals who are both hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) positive and HBeAg positive have more virus in their blood and are more likely to transmit HBV.

Hepatitis C Virus (HCV)

Based on limited studies, the estimated risk for infection after a needlestick or cut exposure to HCV-infected blood is approximately 1.8%. The risk following a blood splash is unknown but is believed to be very small; however, HCV infection from such an exposure has been reported.

Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)

The average risk for HIV infection after a needlestick or cut exposure to HlV-infected blood is 0.3% (about 1 in 300). Stated another way, 99.7% of needlestick/cut exposures to HIV-contaminated blood do not lead to infection.
The risk after exposure of the eye, nose, or mouth to HIV-infected blood is estimated to be, on average, 0.1% (1 in 1,000).
The risk after exposure of the skin to HlV-infected blood is estimated to be less than 0.1%. A small amount of blood on intact skin probably poses no risk at all. There have been no documented cases of HIV transmission due to an exposure involving a small amount of blood on intact skin (a few drops of blood on skin for a short period of time). The risk may be higher if the skin is damaged (for example, by a recent cut), if the contact involves a large area of skin, or if the contact is prolonged.