Aa
HIV transmission through gym equipment?
Hi all,
1st of all i wanna say thx 2 evry1 who has been so kind and willing 2 help out n support each other in d forum. hiv is no small matter and it has gotten us all so scared.
i myself hav a little question, hope u knowledgable guys can help me out.
my exposure is:
i'm an avid gym guy, last wed i went 2 gym and do my routine workout. there's dis HIV+ guy who used the barbell b4 me. i kinda knw him and all this while i m cool with it bcoz i knw hiv doesnt transmit thru inanimate objects. but this particular barbell has rough metal grip surface, i din use glove, so my palm got pricked and scrapped. tiny specks of blood (izzit wat they call micro tear/mirco dermal abrasion?) is visible but no blood oozing out or so. i then checked with the HIV+ guy and he got the same scrapped/pricked marks on his palm.
ok, all the while i knw ppl talking bout hiv cant transmit thru inanimate objects. but dont they mean dried blood and intact skin? in my case, i use the barbell jz 15 seconds after the HIV+ guy. if his hand got the marks, his blood (which is fresh) could be transfer to d barbell then to the fresh 'wound' on my palm, since we are both holding the same metal grip.
is there any chance of transmission in this kind of scenario? is it because there must be quite an amount of blood for the transmission to happen? or the pricked/scrapped marks is simple not deep enough into the skin?
please kindly give ur opinion. thx.
1st of all i wanna say thx 2 evry1 who has been so kind and willing 2 help out n support each other in d forum. hiv is no small matter and it has gotten us all so scared.
i myself hav a little question, hope u knowledgable guys can help me out.
my exposure is:
i'm an avid gym guy, last wed i went 2 gym and do my routine workout. there's dis HIV+ guy who used the barbell b4 me. i kinda knw him and all this while i m cool with it bcoz i knw hiv doesnt transmit thru inanimate objects. but this particular barbell has rough metal grip surface, i din use glove, so my palm got pricked and scrapped. tiny specks of blood (izzit wat they call micro tear/mirco dermal abrasion?) is visible but no blood oozing out or so. i then checked with the HIV+ guy and he got the same scrapped/pricked marks on his palm.
ok, all the while i knw ppl talking bout hiv cant transmit thru inanimate objects. but dont they mean dried blood and intact skin? in my case, i use the barbell jz 15 seconds after the HIV+ guy. if his hand got the marks, his blood (which is fresh) could be transfer to d barbell then to the fresh 'wound' on my palm, since we are both holding the same metal grip.
is there any chance of transmission in this kind of scenario? is it because there must be quite an amount of blood for the transmission to happen? or the pricked/scrapped marks is simple not deep enough into the skin?
please kindly give ur opinion. thx.
just wondering, is my case anywhere near to needle stick injuries? since the HIV+ blood is a few seconds fresh and also my palm got pricked (just like how needle pricks)? or it is still categorized as 'environmental surface'?
soruce: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/qa35.htm
Scientists and medical authorities agree that HIV does not survive well outside the body, making the possibility of environmental transmission remote. HIV is found in varying concentrations or amounts in blood, semen, vaginal fluid, breast milk, saliva, and tears. To obtain data on the survival of HIV, laboratory studies have required the use of artificially high concentrations of laboratory-grown virus. Although these unnatural concentrations of HIV can be kept alive for days or even weeks under precisely controlled and limited laboratory conditions, CDC studies have shown that drying of even these high concentrations of HIV reduces the amount of infectious virus by 90 to 99 percent within several hours. Since the HIV concentrations used in laboratory studies are much higher than those actually found in blood or other specimens, drying of HIV-infected human blood or other body fluids reduces the theoretical risk of environmental transmission to that which has been observed - essentially zero. Incorrect interpretations of conclusions drawn from laboratory studies have in some instances caused unnecessary alarm.
Results from laboratory studies should not be used to assess specific personal risk of infection because (1) the amount of virus studied is not found in human specimens or elsewhere in nature, and (2) no one has been identified as infected with HIV due to contact with an environmental surface. Additionally, HIV is unable to reproduce outside its living host (unlike many bacteria or fungi, which may do so under suitable conditions), except under laboratory conditions; therefore, it does not spread or maintain infectiousness outside its host.
I think that's what Teak and yarn5679 and plainstupid trying to say.
Anyway, thanks guys.
Scientists and medical authorities agree that HIV does not survive well outside the body, making the possibility of environmental transmission remote. HIV is found in varying concentrations or amounts in blood, semen, vaginal fluid, breast milk, saliva, and tears. To obtain data on the survival of HIV, laboratory studies have required the use of artificially high concentrations of laboratory-grown virus. Although these unnatural concentrations of HIV can be kept alive for days or even weeks under precisely controlled and limited laboratory conditions, CDC studies have shown that drying of even these high concentrations of HIV reduces the amount of infectious virus by 90 to 99 percent within several hours. Since the HIV concentrations used in laboratory studies are much higher than those actually found in blood or other specimens, drying of HIV-infected human blood or other body fluids reduces the theoretical risk of environmental transmission to that which has been observed - essentially zero. Incorrect interpretations of conclusions drawn from laboratory studies have in some instances caused unnecessary alarm.
Results from laboratory studies should not be used to assess specific personal risk of infection because (1) the amount of virus studied is not found in human specimens or elsewhere in nature, and (2) no one has been identified as infected with HIV due to contact with an environmental surface. Additionally, HIV is unable to reproduce outside its living host (unlike many bacteria or fungi, which may do so under suitable conditions), except under laboratory conditions; therefore, it does not spread or maintain infectiousness outside its host.
I think that's what Teak and yarn5679 and plainstupid trying to say.
Anyway, thanks guys.
theoratically speaking HIV is a virus and it doesn't just die in open air, its a virus. im not an expert on the matter so probably other guys on here can best inform us
I am not an expert but I am pretty sure HIV dies in the air, so u have nothing to worry about.
Hi Lizzie, pardon my spellings and grammar in my previous posts, i was asking Teak why did he say that HIV is not transmitted in this manner. Is it because of HIV transmission must be blood to blood, as in a HIV+ blood must flow directly into my wound, and not through another object (in this case i mean the barbell).
What I meant earlier was on my palms there are pricked/scrapped marks (which I think it is consider a cut?) where tiny specks of blood can be seen. It is the same on the HIV+ guy's palm, which means there might be some bleeding involved. And the blood from his palms might pass to the barbell and then pass to me through the 'cuts' on my palms.
My question was: Is there any chance of transmission in this kind of scenario? Must there be a significant amount of blood for the transmission to happen? Are the pricked/scrapped marks too superficial for the virus to infect the specific cell?
Sorry I don't mean to double post, just to clarify to Lizzie. Thanks
What I meant earlier was on my palms there are pricked/scrapped marks (which I think it is consider a cut?) where tiny specks of blood can be seen. It is the same on the HIV+ guy's palm, which means there might be some bleeding involved. And the blood from his palms might pass to the barbell and then pass to me through the 'cuts' on my palms.
My question was: Is there any chance of transmission in this kind of scenario? Must there be a significant amount of blood for the transmission to happen? Are the pricked/scrapped marks too superficial for the virus to infect the specific cell?
Sorry I don't mean to double post, just to clarify to Lizzie. Thanks
and how did this turn into blood 2 blood? YOU stated that there was NO blood involved.
please try and use the correct spelling of words so we dont have to decipher your posts.
please try and use the correct spelling of words so we dont have to decipher your posts.
Thx 4 d lightning fast response teak. jz wondering d reason behind it. y its not transmitted in dat manner? izzit coz hiv muz b blood 2 blood? direct contact n not thru a 'medium'?
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the HIV Prevention Community
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
Can I get HIV from surfaces, like toilet seats?
Can you get HIV from casual contact, like hugging?
Frequency of HIV testing depends on your risk.
Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) may help prevent HIV infection.
