Who is poz or neg

[PozBearWI]

On 7/12/2023 at 4:04 PM, LetsPOZBreed said:

Also, I'm sure a certain subset of those "negative" responses might be poz in disguise.  Not necessarily intentionally, of course, but I remember being warned in my younger days about the guys who are poz and don't yet know it - prob due to a recent infection.  These were the more dangerous ones, as their VL wouldn't be tempered by meds yet.  I'm 95% certain I got converted by this type of guy.

Indeed, there were a ton of friends who took the position "I don't wanna know".  

[Guest]

still -

[LetsPOZBreed]

22 hours ago, JimInWisc said:

Indeed, there were a ton of friends who took the position "I don't wanna know".  

This, too.  I assume anyone on BBRT and elsewhere that quotes his status as "not sure" or "don't know" is in this boat.  

[Guest]

On 7/12/2023 at 5:32 PM, muscmtl said:

The biggest lie about 80's Aids is how many of us are still alive. 60% maybe even 70%, did not die

wow, thats interesting.

[PozTalkAuthor]

Pozzed in 2013. Unwillingly, a cheating ex with no respect for himself and me. 

[subbottomguy]

Neg as of last test not on prep and not refusing any load

[hntnhole]

On 7/12/2023 at 1:10 PM, BootmanLA said:

In 2016, the SF Chronicle did a piece on long-term survivors

Wellllllllllll ............. When the plague hit, San Fran was way ahead of most of the country, in terms of gay life in general, and wanton fucking in particular. Do you know how wide-reaching that Chronicle study was - I mean within the US? Was it controlled for factors such as density of the gay population in major metro areas elsewhere, or the freedom that SF percentage felt to have indiscriminate sex?  If it was only conducted within San Fran and it's environs, that would skew the numbers fairly dramatically.  

San Fran was attracting guys from everywhere when hiv came along, even just for a fuck-cation.  

[muscmtl]

Of all the guys who pozzed before 87 that I know, 70%  are still alive.

Blows my mind that there is still NO accurate data on the lethal rate of HIV from this era.

[viking8x6]

1 hour ago, hntnhole said:

Do you know how wide-reaching that Chronicle study was

It's a newspaper report, not a study of any sort.

15 minutes ago, muscmtl said:

Of all the guys who pozzed before 87 that I know, 70%  are still alive.

Blows my mind that there is still NO accurate data on the lethal rate of HIV from this era.

The basic reason for this is that HIV infection rates were not tracked during that era. All the data available through at least1996 or 2000 pertain only to AIDS diagnosis.

That said, there are quite a lot of good statistical data on that. You can find a pretty good summary through 2000 or so here https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5021a2.htm and here https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5521a2.htm

Using data from Table 1 in the first reference, I get the pre-2000 mortality rate of diagnosed AIDS as 58%. That's not absurdly far from your anecdotal 30%, especially if you figure that some of those people still alive didn't actually receive an AIDS diagnosis before 2000.

[BootmanLA]

On 7/15/2023 at 1:13 PM, hntnhole said:

Wellllllllllll ............. When the plague hit, San Fran was way ahead of most of the country, in terms of gay life in general, and wanton fucking in particular. Do you know how wide-reaching that Chronicle study was - I mean within the US? Was it controlled for factors such as density of the gay population in major metro areas elsewhere, or the freedom that SF percentage felt to have indiscriminate sex?  If it was only conducted within San Fran and it's environs, that would skew the numbers fairly dramatically.  

San Fran was attracting guys from everywhere when hiv came along, even just for a fuck-cation.  

As I understand the SF Chron story, they were looking specifically at Bay-Area residents only.

It's true that SF attracted lots of guys for fuck-cations (and even just regular vacations where a hookup or two occurred) - but those aren't the people the newspaper report covered. They were interviewing residents, and doing research into public health records (which would almost all be for residents, not visitors - because visitors would have likely returned home long before their diagnosis, especially in the days when there was no test and you could only get a diagnosis when an infection hit).

And yes, of course SF was at a unique place on the curve, given its demographics. But that also means it has a big population to study (meaning you can get more reliable data) contrasted with, say, early 80's statistics from small midwestern cities. SF also had one of the earliest quality treatment centers (and by treatment I mean in the overall sense, not HIV-med-specific, which didn't exist yet).

 In other words, assuming one was infected, *where* it happened (for the purposes of this story) didn't matter. People who came to SF, had sex, got pozzed in the process, and returned home, would be counted in that home area's caseload and records when they were diagnosed.

[BootmanLA]

On 7/15/2023 at 2:56 PM, viking8x6 said:

It's a newspaper report, not a study of any sort.

The basic reason for this is that HIV infection rates were not tracked during that era. All the data available through at least1996 or 2000 pertain only to AIDS diagnosis.

That said, there are quite a lot of good statistical data on that. You can find a pretty good summary through 2000 or so here [think before following links] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5021a2.htm and here [think before following links] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5521a2.htm

Using data from Table 1 in the first reference, I get the pre-2000 mortality rate of diagnosed AIDS as 58%. That's not absurdly far from your anecdotal 30%, especially if you figure that some of those people still alive didn't actually receive an AIDS diagnosis before 2000.

Not only does the medical data pertain only to AIDS diagnoses, we simply don't know how many people's deaths were recorded as something other than AIDS-related, as long as there wasn't too close scrutiny.

Moreover, just because someone infected in, say, 1988 was still alive in 2000 doesn't mean he was still alive in 2010 or 2023. Even though the concept of 3-drug cocktails had been discovered (or invented) a few years earlier, those medications weren't in reach of everyone.

That doesn't mean the data we DO have from the era is completely useless. But as a means of determining the percentage of men who were HIV-infected in the 1980's who are still alive, it's not too far from that. We don't have a base number - that of infections - to even look at. Nor do we know, for instance, if a guy who was 35 in 1980 when infected and who would now be 78 if still alive, but who died nine years ago of X or Y, might still be alive if not for having HIV. HIV, in such a case, wouldn't be considered the cause of death, but it may still be a factor.

What we can do, as the Chronicle story did, is look at the big numbers - how many local cases had been diagnosed over the years, and how many of those people could they find still alive. Some, undoubtedly, moved away. But the surviving number locally was depressingly small, which tracks the anecdotal evidence of people who lived through the era and recall the relentless death reports.

[Indynudeguy]

Active chaser.

[Splitcock]

The major increase is probably because each period spans four years and then the last period (2010 to now) spans over 13 years.

[Guest]

Pretty certain still Neg here. 

[partying.hard]

I just found this thread … so I’m late voting.  Sorry.

@muscmtl … you got bred early.  Do you know who or when?