Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The WHO say the disease is currently being transmitted primarily through extremely close contact and sex, so the current outbreak in western countries is mostly down to men having unprotected sex (mostly with other men). You can be sure therefore that there will be no lockdown or any attempt to forcibly curb the spread.
Quite a minor point, but I think the spread is through very close contact, so the sex being unprotected is probably not relevant. They are saying that you could, for example, be infected by changing an infected person's bed sheets.
Oh yes I totally agree, and don’t deny in the slightest that the news needs to honestly discuss what is a contributing factor, I’m just stating that I hope the less classy proportion of the public don’t have a similar reaction to LGBT people as the awful anti-Chinese sentiment expressed from COVID, because some of the persecution as a result of that was horrendous.
Quite a minor point, but I think the spread is through very close contact, so the sex being unprotected is probably not relevant. They are saying that you could, for example, be infected by changing an infected person's bed sheets.
Yes you could, for example, be infected through very close contact. That’s not in dispute. But the current outbreak appears to be caused by men who have sex with men, and who share multiple partners. This is also not in dispute; the WHO said this themselves.
Being squeamish about it isn’t going to be helpful. It will result in more men (and some women, inevitably) getting monkeypox.
If you’re a man and have sex with other men - *and* share partners - it is probably a good idea to either not do that *at the moment*. This is the big message right now.
I think that the promiscuous types that act like stray dogs in an alley way need to give it a rest at the moment, the way I have seen some people behaving in night clubs, monkey pox comes as no surprise.
Yes you could, for example, be infected through very close contact. That’s not in dispute. But the current outbreak appears to be caused by men who have sex with men, and who share multiple partners. This is also not in dispute; the WHO said this themselves.
Being squeamish about it isn’t going to be helpful. It will result in more men (and some women, inevitably) getting monkeypox.
If you’re a man and have sex with other men - *and* share partners - it is probably a good idea to either not do that at the moment. This is the big message right now.
I agree with what you say. My point was you referred to 'unprotected sex'. Because the virus spreads through close contact, I don't think protection will make any difference. As you say, people need to think carefully about what they decide to do at the moment.
I agree with what you say. My point was you referred to 'unprotected sex'. Because the virus spreads through close contact, I don't think protection will make any difference. As you say, people need to think carefully about what they decide to do at the moment.
The virus is currently spreading through bodily fluids. The WHO are investigating the change in the virus’ behaviour and are rightly also calling for caution about other forms of close contact. But at the moment the evidence is the virus is circulating in groups of men who, to put it bluntly, all have sex with each other. (Not all of those men will identify as gay!)
The current state of play is:
People at high risk for infection include those who had:
Direct exposure to broken skin or mucous membranes of a symptomatic monkeypox case
Exposure to body fluids of people with monkeypox infection
Exposure to potentially infectious material like clothing or bedding without wearing appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE)
The first two are what happens during unprotected sex. Wearing a condom will protect people who are having sex from the first two risks.
Saying you don’t think wearing a condom will make a difference is worryingly naive.
If you’re a man and have sex with other men - *and* share partners - it is probably a good idea to either not do that *at the moment*. This is the big message right now
Quite a minor point, but I think the spread is through very close contact, so the sex being unprotected is probably not relevant. They are saying that you could, for example, be infected by changing an infected person's bed sheets.
I think you are right to be concerned; I am reminded of the way some blamed gay men for spreading HIV in the 1980s.
I think using a condom is sensible, but I do not think it will prevent the spread of monkeypox if someone is having sex with an infected person. And there is a danger that if the message focuses on unprotected sex, people will wrongly believe that a condom will keep them safe.
Have there been any reported cases in the UK where the person got it some way other than sexual intercourse? Risky, multi-partner sex appears to be the reason monkeypox has jumped from endemic countries to places like Britain and other European nations.
An outbreak of the monkeypox virus in North America and Europe is primarily spreading through sex among men with about 200 confirmed and suspected cases.
World Health Organization has recorded more than 90 cases of monkeypox in a dozen countries including Britain, Spain, Israel, France, Switzerland, Australia and the U.S.
www.cbsnews.com
I think the people needing to be most on guard are
1) Men who have sex with (multiple) men, and
2) Anyone else who has multiple sexual partners - eventually this virus will jump to a woman, likely through sex
At the moment it seems incredibly wise to discourage risky sexual behaviour while the current outbreak is being analysed.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I think using a condom is sensible, but I do not think it will prevent the spread of monkeypox if someone is having sex with an infected person. And there is a danger that if the message focuses on unprotected sex, people will wrongly believe that a condom will keep them safe.
If you are going to have sex with men, especially if you or your partner have multiple sexual partners, wearing a condom appears to be the principal line of defence at the moment. Many patients are being reported to have the lesions spring up first in areas related to sexual intercourse. Or, alternatively, it is perhaps wiser to not engage in that activity at all, for the time being. We are probably on the same page here, right?
Appropriate public health measures are indicated, e.g. closing down all venues where transmission seems particularly likely to occur, at least "for the duration".
If you are going to have sex with men, especially if you or your partner have multiple sexual partners, wearing a condom appears to be the principal line of defence at the moment. Many patients are being reported to have the lesions spring up first in areas related to sexual intercourse. Or, alternatively, it is perhaps wiser to not engage in that activity at all, for the time being. We are probably on the same page here, right?
I think we are on the same page. The best defence, until more is understood, is to avoid having sex with random/multiple partners, especially between men. If someone is going to do that then of course they should use protection, but it would be unwise to think this makes it safe.
From one of the articles you linked to: "By nature, sexual activity involves intimate contact, which one would expect to increase the likelihood of transmission, whatever a person's sexual orientation and irrespective of the mode of transmission," said Mike Skinner, a virologist at Imperial College London.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Appropriate public health measures are indicated, e.g. closing down all venues where transmission seems particularly likely to occur, at least "for the duration".
I note Spain have closed a sauna which they believe is linked to their outbreak, but ultimately I'm not sure what kind of venue you would close down. It seems likely to me that the community transmission in the UK will be occurring in private houses, which you cannot close down.
Appropriate public health measures are indicated, e.g. closing down all venues where transmission seems particularly likely to occur, at least "for the duration".
Have the WHO suggested this? Closing down saunas and clubs may be bolting the door after the horse has bolted, and doesn’t prevent the activity anyway.
Indeed - rather like Covid hospitality closures didn't stop people meeting friends for a drink. They just did it in their houses while the pubs were closed.
Monkeypox isn’t spread like covid. The challenge with covid was threefold: it was highly transmissible by aerosols and it also had a fairly long incubation period, coupled with the potential for asymptomatic transmission.
The WHO say the disease is currently being transmitted primarily through extremely close contact and sex, so the current outbreak in western countries is mostly down to men having unprotected sex (mostly with other men). You can be sure therefore that there will be no lockdown or any attempt to forcibly curb the spread.
I think that is a bit unfair bordering on homophobic in tone, I'm afraid. It can be transmitted by any skin to skin contact, so kissing and cuddling would be sufficient, as would a simple handshake.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
If you’re a man and have sex with other men - *and* share partners - it is probably a good idea to either not do that *at the moment*. This is the big message right now.
Appropriate public health measures are indicated, e.g. closing down all venues where transmission seems particularly likely to occur, at least "for the duration".
I think that is a bit unfair bordering on homophobic in tone, I'm afraid. It can be transmitted by any skin to skin contact, so kissing and cuddling would be sufficient, as would a simple handshake.
It’s not in the least bit homophobic, the current outbreak is happening among clusters of men who have sex with men, not “people shaking hands”. Not all of those men consider themselves gay.
If there was a sudden rash of HIV in Wales which was caused by needle sharing groups of injecting drug addicts you don’t get additional points for denying it and saying “you can get HIV from other sources too”.
The big risk at the moment with this particular outbreak in Europe is people who will come into ahem, very close contact with men who have sex with men. It’s a simple as that. What is homophobic about that?
There is of course not going to be a lockdown because it is being spread in a different way to covid.
It’s not in the least bit homophobic, the current outbreak is happening among clusters of men who have sex with men, not “people shaking hands”. Not all of those men consider themselves gay.
It isn't a simple STD so wearing a condom won't prevent it. It's skin to skin contact, which would be rather hard to avoid while having sex. The "unprotected sex" thing had to me the wrong tone about it; it to me carried the implication of "effing gays and their irresponsible unprotected sex". Apologies if that wasn't the intention, but it's definitely how it read to me.
The message needs to be to avoid intimate physical contact with multiple "unknown" partners (some straight people do that as well), which would include kissing and cuddling as that spreads it too. It's as much of a potential issue if you do "hook-ups" via Tinder as Grindr. There's no real need to say more than that. Straight and bisexual people need to be careful, too.
Even ignoring the homophobic aspect, getting it into peoples' minds that it's a "gay disease" will just end up it spreading everywhere in straight people, too. HIV also isn't exclusively a "gay disease", it's a disease of people who have unprotected sex and/or share needles or similar.
I think the people needing to be most on guard are
1) Men who have sex with (multiple) men, and
2) Anyone else who has multiple sexual partners - eventually this virus will jump to a woman, likely through sex
I am not worried about monkeypox but I am getting a little concerned about potential restrictions. At the very start of the pandemic we were told nothing to worry about and no chance of major restrictions in UK. Then came isolation. Then the bans on big events and eventually lockdown. With monkeypox we are so far seeing a similar pattern. In Belgium there is now compulsory isolation if you come into contact with someone with monkeypox. Even if it's not lockdown, it does seem like may be heading for restrictions. Weve seen how easily the public are spooked into supporting them.
At the very start of the pandemic we were told nothing to worry about and no chance of major restrictions in UK. Then came isolation. Then the bans on big events and eventually lockdown. With monkeypox we are so far seeing a similar pattern.
But it's a completely different situation. Covid was a new disease that was easily spread without need for close contact, hence limitations on movement and assembly made sense. Monkeypox is a known quantity, and requires (as far as we know) close physical contact (as in swapping bodily fluids) to spread.
Isolation for infected people makes sense, just as it would for chickenpox, rubella or the mumps. There is next to zero need for general movement limitation.
But it's a completely different situation. Covid was a new disease that was easily spread without need for close contact, hence limitations on movement and assembly made sense. Monkeypox is a known quantity, and requires (as far as we know) close physical contact (as in swapping bodily fluids) to spread.
Isolation for infected people makes sense, just as it would for chickenpox, rubella or the mumps. There is next to zero need for general movement limitation.
Because swapping bodily fluids can happen inadvertently - for example through someone with an open wound touching a surface that an infected person has just touched. Also, while it's not the primary mechanism, there is some potential for airborne transmission.
Isolation (self- or otherwise) of infected people isn't a new idea.
Because swapping bodily fluids can happen inadvertently. For example through someone with an open wound touching a surface that an infected person has just touched.
Isolation (self- or otherwise) of infected people isn't a new idea.
I think the difficulties with COVID were more around the fact that most people had little more than the sniffles, and some not even that.
If you're covered in itchy welts and feeling really unwell, you won't want to leave the house. It's similar to flu. If you can get out of bed and go to work, it's not flu, it's a cold. So most people "self isolate" if they have something nasty just out of practicality.
I wonder how long this can live on a bogseat? That could be a form of contact spread if it can for a while.
I mention it because some people have latched onto the idea that self-isolation is about "Government control of the sheeple" rather than an effective, basic infection control practice that's been around for a century or more.
Most people who are actually sick with unpleasant diseases as opposed to colds stay off work and don't go out with their mates out of simple respect for others, and always have done. It's basic human consideration for others, and generally you don't feel well enough anyway.
The big problem with COVID was that for most people it pretty much was a cold.
Don't know about you, but if I'm covered in itchy welts I don't want to be knocking around in public.
Do we really need research to conclude that the spread of a disease that we know is transmitted by close contact would be slowed by reducing close contact?
It may be done with the intention of controlling infection, and it may have some success, but that doesn't change the fact that forcing someone to isolate against their will is an exertion of control over that person.
Do we really need research to conclude that the spread of a disease that we know is transmitted by close contact would be slowed by reducing close contact?
This is not just advising people to reducing close contact that is being discussed, the point you were replying to was legislation to totally deprive people of even the basic liberty to leave their home for weeks on end, and not even just those actually infected but those deemed to be "close contacts". What cost/benefit analysis have you done to conclude that this is proportionate of morally acceptable?
Where did you get "any restrictions being utterly unacceptable"? It's more a case of any restrictions should be proportionate and subject to cost/benefit analysis, rather than rushing headlong into a barbaric totalitarian state all over again.
Some clearly will. Personally, while I know close contacts* can be debated, I think going on with your normal life while knowingly infected with a very unpleasant communicable disease (rather than a cold) is just a bit antisocial.
* In this case a "close contact" means same household or prolonged bodily contact e.g. sex, not just people you've been to the pub with. So very few people.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Where did you get "any restrictions being utterly unacceptable"? It's more a case of any restrictions should be proportionate and subject to cost/benefit analysis, rather than rushing headlong into a barbaric totalitarian state all over again.
I think staying at home when you know you have a serious communicable disease (rather than e.g. a cold) is simply the act of a reasonable person, never mind any legislation.
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
www.cbsnews.com
