That is not what was said. The quote is: "Situation B: High risk, really at risk person, a gay man who has receptive anal sex with a known HIV infected person."
I'll repeat: How is a gay man who receives anal sex from a known HIV positive person any more at risk than a female who receives anal sex from a known HIV positive person, be that person a IV drug user, bisexual, or heterosexual man?
I don't understand what troubles Ronnie99. I didn't say that receptive anal sex is any less risky for a woman than for a gay man. Receptive anal sex with a known-infected male is the highest of all sexual risk activities for HIV transmission. The gender of the receptive partner doesn't matter. (Presumably Ronnie isn't offended because I just happened to pick a gay male scenario rather than a heterosexual one.)
HHH, MD
"Why would a gay man who had anal sex with a known HIV positive person be any more at risk than a woman who had anal sex with a known HIV positive person? I find the comment by the doctor to be troubling...."
I don't think he is. He is saying that in the United States and most industrial communities HIV is much more prevelant in the gay community and IDU users. So statisticly your chances of receptical anal intercourse within the gay community carries a much higher risk than a male hetero act.
Symtpoms mean nothing so factoring symptoms into any equasion is pointless. Especially if people started calculating -20% because they have a sore throat.
Thanks Doc, I am extremely happy today after reading ur comment and now i have no more worries at all.Once again thanks doc.
Why would a gay man who had anal sex with a known HIV positive person be any more at risk than a woman who had anal sex with a known HIV positive person? I find the comment by the doctor to be troubling....
Actually, a person could factor in .20 (20% or, i.e 80-90% of infected people get ARS)) that you did not get Acute HIV symptoms as well that would jump the odds quite a bit in itself. Is that logical?