Disturbing Vegas STD Stats

[+ not2rowdy]

Local Vegas newspaper article (9/29/17) IRT STD’s. Article doesn’t discuss HIV.

 

https://www.reviewjournal.com/life/health/clark-county-ranks-high-in-std-cases/

 

Overall STD’s (2016 stats):

Clark County (where LV is located) ranks very high nationwide for STD’s.

About 80pct of Nevada’s STD cases come from Clark County.

 

Syphilis (293pct increase from 2012 to 2016)

Nevada ranks #2 in the nation for syphilis.

Men with men are most cases of syphilis (58pct).

Syphilis cases have tripled since 2012.

Most syphilis cases occurred among ages 25-29.

 

Gonorrhea (93pct increase from 2012 to 2016)

Most gonorrhea cases occurred among ages 20-24.

 

Chlamydia (32pct increase from 2012 to 2016)

75pct of Nevada’s STD cases were chlamydia (mostly young women).

Most chlamydia cases occurred among ages 20-24.

 

Bottom line: Likely true everywhere - not just LV. Be careful and be safe. Focus on established providers vetted by the user community. Don’t be shy about asking about testing - but remember last weeks test doesn’t mean safe today.

[corndog]

Considering that abstinence is off the table for most of us, and condoms don't prevent all STDs, the most responsible course of action is frequent testing and prompt treatment. Although many people will (correctly) point out that PrEP only offers protection from HIV, and not other STDs, the PrEP prescription protocols dictate a full panel of STD tests every three months.

 

Whether you're using PrEP or not, if you're sexually active, quarter testing can help reduce the spread of STDs, and help keep us all a little safer.

[jjkrkwood]

Well they say "what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas", so maybe it'll stay contained ?

[+ not2rowdy]

...I would actually like to see how the testing rate has changed from years past as an increase in testing will obviously lead to higher positive results but not necessarily a higher percentage of infections.

 

The article linked above does allude to that.

“Another contributing factor…is better reporting.”

 

But that may have to to be balanced with

 

“But trying to keep up with the hook-up culture from semi-anonymous online dating has made… (the) job harder.” (Referring to the difficulty medical people have trying to inform those who may have been exposed).

[samhexum]

https://www.companyofmen.org/threads/attention-all-sluts.127741/

[mike carey]

Several people love to point out that "PrEP is a major contributor to the rise in STIs, etc" when in reality the number of people on PrEP doesn't come nearly close to the number of new infections being reported. I would actually like to see how the testing rate has changed from years past as an increase in testing will obviously lead to higher positive results but not necessarily a higher percentage of infections.

There you go again, injecting facts into a debate!

 

Seriously, your point applies to criminal statistics as well, and some people ignore factors that affect reporting levels to beat a drum about their pet law and order issues. Two examples, an increase in rape statistics in Sweden was used to demonise refugees (more so by US commentators than Swedish ones) when much of it was due to a radical widening of the definition of rape. Here, over the last three years there has been a huge increase in public discussion about domestic violence after a victim turned advocate was named Australian of the Year. [Mainly] women were emboldened to report instances, and the police are now more likely to take allegations seriously, and now have dedicated DV officers and formal protocols for dealing with cases.

[Walker1]

Yes but these are not decades ago. Just from 2012 to 2016. Syphilis alone showed an almost 300% increase-alarming I think?

[rvwnsd]

And it isn't confined to the young'uns. Seniors are also contracting STIs at alarming rates.

[adannyboy]

Awww. Cali lost its spot as #2 for syphilis. Guess we’ll have to change those billboards

[+ sniper]

Several people love to point out that "PrEP is a major contributor to the rise in STIs, etc" when in reality the number of people on PrEP doesn't come nearly close to the number of new infections being reported. I would actually like to see how the testing rate has changed from years past as an increase in testing will obviously lead to higher positive results but not necessarily a higher percentage of infections.

 

That doesn't mean PreP didn't have something to do with it. If two people are having sex, only one of them has to be on PreP to not have to worry about HIV transmission -i.e. the person on PreP isn't worried about whether his partner is, and if he is on PreP, his partner isn't concerned about HIV(not saying one should outsource one's protection, just that, realistically speaking, if the other person is on it, you are basically protected from HIV.)

And people on PreP likely do have more partners than those not on PreP. Hell, I know a guy who claimed he had 300 partners one summer.

 

But I'd put more onus on things like the "CumUnion" barebacking parties as well as some idiots extolling the virtues of barebacking. I forget what online gay rag ran something saying something along the lines of "There's a new sexual revolution brewing, go out and get some." And just generally people being more careless because PreP exists, not even that they are necessarily on it.

[rvwnsd]

The article does not reference sexual orientation, so I'm assuming that the statistics pertain to the population at large and not just to men who have sex with men. That would minimize the influence of the CumUnion parties and use of Truvada as PrEP, as heterosexual people having sex with people of the opposite gender typically don't attend gay barebacking parties nor are they the target market for Truvada as PrEP.

[+ José Soplanucas]

Several people love to point out that "PrEP is a major contributor to the rise in STIs, etc" when in reality the number of people on PrEP doesn't come nearly close to the number of new infections being reported. I would actually like to see how the testing rate has changed from years past as an increase in testing will obviously lead to higher positive results but not necessarily a higher percentage of infections.

 

It would be interesting crossing the data with social class. Correct me if I am wrong, because I have done no research, but I think PrEP is available mostly for those who can afford it or have health insurance that can help them to afford it. I got it for free, but I wonder if the lower household income population has access to the information I do. I also wonder whether or not PrEP is mainstream enough to have a statistical incidence.

 

A side note. It always puzzles me when even a wonderful progress as Truvada is somewhat turned into another step into the swamp (not a Trump or DC related reference) instead of being celebrated.