Aa
Please somebody! Explain this to me!
Why do the doctors keep on advising people just to test out to 6-8 weeks despite the official and well known official recommendation of the 3 months mark? Please! Somebody! That I cannot understand.
But it DOESN'T mean that in 5% of cases it would change. It just means that at 6 weeks 95% of the people who would test positive will have tested positive by that time. So you're left with 5% unknown (.05) x risk (1 in 2000 or .0005 if it was a single act of unprotected vaginal sex with a female who's for sure HIV positive). .05 x .0005 = .000025 which is somewhere in the range of 1 in 50,000 IF the person was HIV positive and you had a negative test at 6 weeks.
All that being said. You still could be that one. People win the lotto everyday. But it's more than highly unlikely.
All that being said. You still could be that one. People win the lotto everyday. But it's more than highly unlikely.
yes sorry about that...I did actually mean that in 5% of cases, it would change, but for a specific act, you are right that you need to multiply by the risk factor (which gives a possibility of much less that 5% of changing although depending on who and how etc, this will be different, but still less.
ManinThai...You're brain is not in the right place. It's not a 5% chance you have HIV if you had sex with someone with HIV, and the test comes back negative at 6 weeks. You need to multiply the 5% by the risk factor.
No one's disputing Teak saying 12/13 week test is conclusive. No test is 100% reliable no longer how long you wait to get it taken.
There are plenty of threads in the Dr's forums that go into test reliability at 4 weeks / 6 weeks etc... and it is as I stated.
No one's disputing Teak saying 12/13 week test is conclusive. No test is 100% reliable no longer how long you wait to get it taken.
There are plenty of threads in the Dr's forums that go into test reliability at 4 weeks / 6 weeks etc... and it is as I stated.
I know what THE window period is....ie 12 weeks, but I thought you might be on about a different one.
i guess the 1 in 2000 comes from the ratio of the number of people who are infected and the number of people who are at. How else would they come up with that figure? But thats wrong what he said, if it is negative at 4 weeks, it still means it is 95% accurate and he has a 5% chance left that he actually caught it off the definitely hiv positive person. Coz, if at 12 weeks it is still positive, he didnt catch it.
You should refrain from answering questions on this forum if you don't know what the window period is.
No doubt. But if you've had a single low-risk exposure and have a negative test at 4 weeks, and the person was HIV positive, the chances of that being true would be 1 in 20,000
Here some math for you snippets69, YOU CAN get infected on the first time that you have unprotected sex with someone that is HIV positive.
slight correction to the last sentence...That's IF the person you had sex with was positive.
It's not that people don't buy into them. It's just that it's not 100% conclusive. The numbers are real. And it's not "10% chance left", you have to figure risk also. Assume a man has 1 time unprotected sex with a woman who's for sure HIV positive.That's 1 in 2000 chance you'd get it. If you had a ELISA come back negative at 4 weeks, that's 90% conclusive. (.0005 x .1) = 1 in 20,000. And that's IF the person was positive.
I agree as well, I was in fro my 4 week test yesterday and the specialist was training a nurse. He said that the testing guidlines are still based on teh 80's but cant see anyone changing them to protect there own ***. It is confirmed that most people will test positive by six weeks but like everyone else says, I would feel better knowing that I only have a 5% chance left. Teak, I always see that you say 3 month is conclusive but I dont think the doctors will tell ******** when they say that 95% of people will be positive by six. How come you do not buy into these numbers?
only 2 things are gaurenteed in life, 1- your born 2- one day you will die.
from what research iv done if a person is positive about 96% or thereabouts will show up by 6-7 weeks.
from what research iv done if a person is positive about 96% or thereabouts will show up by 6-7 weeks.
But does EVERYONE test either negative or positive within 12 weeks max if they are not on chemo, rejection drugs or PEP?
And isn't it just 5% or thereabouts that test positive after 4 or 6 weeks??? I thought that was what the DUO was all about....the fact that MOST (95%) of peeps if they are infected will show up on DUO by 4 weeks. Of course then you have to consider whether you are happy with that result and are not one of the 5% i suppose.
And isn't it just 5% or thereabouts that test positive after 4 or 6 weeks??? I thought that was what the DUO was all about....the fact that MOST (95%) of peeps if they are infected will show up on DUO by 4 weeks. Of course then you have to consider whether you are happy with that result and are not one of the 5% i suppose.
Uh, ok! That doesn't include me so good to go! I ain't on chemo or on antirejection drugs! Thank you so much for your help. Just a last question, does the condom brand matter? I had never tried this brand before but it was all that was handy at the moment.
Are you asking me or telling me to live and move on with my result? Thanks again.
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.
