When is a test really worth it?

There is just way too much information on the internet, and if you're looking for an illness to match some bump or what have you that flares up on your skin, you're bound to fine twenty differentn illnesses.  This introductory sentence is just the uncondensed version of of my nickname.  I get obsessively worried about things like STD's and such, even when I have no symptoms whatsoever.  Of course, when I call a hotline and ask the person whether getting tested for this or that is worthwhile, they say yes.  So many STD's may not become symptomatic, and isn't it better to be safe than sorry? - and so on so.   However, free public clinics do not offer all the tests that are out there, and some of these tests are pretty darn costly, particularly during these economic times.  So, I ask: if one has never had any painful sores or blisters on their genitals (just one time having a few bumps on the upper thigh, which went away and never returned - which, could be anything, from too much friction to god knows what), then is paying up to 100 dollars or more for an IgG test worth it?  What bothers me the most about all of this STD stuff is the lack of consensus with regard to certain viruses and infections.  Go to one site, it says HSV-1 is so common that 90% of the population as been exposed to it - just a simple goodnight kiss from a parent to a child could transmit oral herpes.  One person told me that if two people had oral herpes, that one could not transmit the HSV-1 to the genitals.  Another site said that having oral herpes reduced the liklihood of that kind of transmission occurring.  Then another site claimed that the statistics for exposure were really only about 60% and that transmision of the HSV-1 virus was not as easy as once thought.  Where in the hell are all of these statistics derived in the first place? - and considering the lack of consensus on such statistics, and even the health hazards of herpes types, etc., is there really any reliable source of information?  I've had several partners and I have never had any outbreaks of blisters or sores, and neither have any of these partners, to my knowledge.  I've also engaged in risky behavior in the past, and I can't be 100% sure that I haven't been exposed to the virus - but again, without having an outbreak of any painful sores or blisters that would send me running to the doctor, what is the reason for spending 100 dollars for an IgG test?  Peace of mind?  A mind that was once peaceful now disturbed by the panic resulting from sites relaying different information and excessive causes for concern?  I spoke with somebody on the phone who represented one of these Lab-type places where the claim is that their tests are the most up to date and most reliable - yet the price for getting these tests (I believe 7 in all) was 350 dollars! - and he made it sound as though it was reasonable in light of the high percentage of people who can show little to no signs at all of an infection or viral contamination.  If I touch somebody else's nail clipper, should I worry that I may have contracted Hepatitis C?  Should I spend an excessive amount of money, time, and energy trying to determine the extent of my "cleanliness" - without seeing a spot of dirt anywhere, yet the dirt could still be there, so I should find out if it is?  Where does one draw the line?  Should I pay 350 dollars after each partner just to be somewhat sure that I have nothing to worry about? - but because nothing is 100%, including the accuracy of tests, no matter how refined, I would still worry anyhow; and three days later there is a new site up criticizing the current testing I have done for inaccuracy, invalidating the procedures I have went through for all that money.  If IgG testing is not going to be avaliable for free at a public health center, then what is the point of paying for it if you're only doing routine screening?  I could see the point if one had sores or blisters on their genitilia...  But just because something might be there, might be dormant, might be a problem - I don't see why anybody should worry much about it.  But hey, I could be wrong.  I just think there are two factors going on that feed on each other: businesses that have created these products (tests) obviously want customers, and what better way to get the most customers than to inspire fear in potential consumers?    - InformationOverload

[gracefromHHP]

In the US 60% of adults under 50  have hsv1.  This is from the latest released figures from the NHANES testing from the government.  In other countries it differs with it being much higher in less developed countries.  On reputable sites, they are using the figures from NHANES for the most part.  

So what testing should you have when? Well if you are using condoms all the time, just periodically get herpes blood testing done since condoms aren't 100% protection against the transmission of it.  If you donate blood regularly, you are also getting tested for hiv , hepatitis b&c and syphilis.   You can usually get tested cheaply or for free for chlamydia , gonorrhea and hiv at your local health department.  That's covering the main std's except for herpes easily.  Would I get the whole shebang after every new partner?  Only if you are having sex with high risk people.  If you have mostly long term relationships, just cover your bases before starting a new relationship.  If you have multiple new partners in the course of a year, be sure to be using condoms to reduce your risk.  If you aren't using condoms regularly, decide how often you want tested - for your own health and for the health of your partners.

no real definite answers out there to tell you exactly what and when. depends on your own lifestyle and that of your partners.

grace