Conflicting Statements?

[timbomac]

I could use some clarification. I've seen several comments from experts on this forum that if a person shows no lesions or visible signs of herpes at 10 days post possible exposure to HSV-2, that the person really shouldn't worry and that they probably have not acquired HSV-2. But at the same time, I've seen statements that you don't know if a person is really "in the clear" until they have tested negative with an IgG test at four months. Could you please clarify what appears to be two conflicting statements?

[Terri Warren, RN, Adult Nurse Practitioner]

IF people are going to have symptoms after getting herpes they will normally show up within 2-10 days.  However, since 80% of those infected with HSV 2 don't know they are infected, we believe that not everyone has symptoms when the acquire the infection, at least symptoms that they recognize as herpes.  

Since people don't get antibody from someone else, they make it themselves, it can take up to four months to make antibody.  A very few people may make antibody after that time.  

Does that help?

Terri

[asdf0987300]

How common is it to have symptoms except for any visible signs of rash, bumps, irritation, or blisters?

[Terri Warren, RN, Adult Nurse Practitioner]

I would agree with this assessment, yes.  
Except that 80% of those infected are not truly asymptomatic.  Most of those have some symptoms, but they are not recognized as being herpetic.

Terri

[timbomac]

Yes that does clarify it. Thank you. So really, since the wide majority of those infected are asymptomatic (80%) no one (who believes that they have been exposed to HSV-2) should derive a great deal of solace from the fact that they are not showing symptoms in the first 10 or so days. It really doesn't matter much in terms of knowing whether they are infected or not. The only way to know is if they are tested in four months with an IgG test.

Hate to put a pessimistic spin on this, but that's my read. Thanks again.