I initially posted this question on hiv forum, but they asked me to take it here. I understand it might be OCD, but, how to get rid of the thoughts? the numbers are real, and we have to believe in numbers... pls read below.
After months of anxious waiting, I have put myself in a higher risk situation and I have to wait for another three months to test. It may sound ridiculous to you, but let me give you numbers.
More than four months ago, I had a protected sex with a sex worker, I did not remember if the condom slipped off, so I had to assume it was a unprotected vaginal insertive sex, so the risk was 1:2000 (if the sex worker is positive)
After many tests and the long three-months mark, I was happy to know I'm negative, just as expected. However, I did not notice if they changed the needle in the lancet device they used to do the finger *****. (Note to Teak, I have asked them, and they were using an older model of Accu-Chek Softlix which did not have the built-in design to prevent reuse of the needles in lancet). Many people always said we have proper medical procedures, it's not possible for them to reuse needles in the lancet. OK, but this is just a groundless statement, first you do not have statistics to back you up, even if you have, you do not have statistics for that particular clinic or nurse; second, it is common sense that we all tend to forget to lock the car even if we use the car everyday, or we may forget to close the fridge door even if we use it everyday, so it is not impossible for nursese to forget to change the needle in the lancet.
So I checked the statistics for hiv risk from reused lancet. All I can find is 1:300 for HIV contaminated needle injury. There is no statistics for lancet. From what I read, "needle" includes all types of needles, including hollow needles, suture needles, and perhaps the needle in the lancet. Many people said because lancet needle is not hollow, it can't hold the blood, and the blood will dry out in the air very soon, so the probability for lancet needle is lower than 1:300. OK, but first the lancet needle is held in a pen-like device, so it isn't really exposed to the air; second, no one knows how soon the blood will dry out (there are many different views), so the conclusion is, we do not know how low is the risk for HIV contaminated lancet, 1:300? 1:500? 1:1000? There is just no scientific statistics to prove this. But you see the point, it is higher than the above 1:2000 for unprotected insertive vaginal sex with a HIV positive woman!
Regardless, I have now put myself in a higher risk situation, after so many tests and so many months, and I have to wait for another three months... It appears that testing is more dangerous than having sex! at least the statistics strictly showed that, and I don't think you can find a statistics to prove this wrong. That's why I feel like a fool!