Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesouth
the old months and months window thing is a red herring really its so small a number as to be insignificant add to that that the current PCR tests that test for the virus are flawed in that an infected person on anti virals will have a viral load too low to detect and can show as negative even though they arent. this is a far bigger risk than the exceedingly rare person who takes more than a few weeks to test positive with oraquick.
I like the idea of oraquick prior to every shoot. I checked and I should be able to get them for around 15 bucks per test in q/100
|
Why not do both? If someone has a low viral count they likely won't pass it on. If you are undectable you won't pass it on. It's sort of weird because the information they give to people without it is scary but when you have it the epidemiologist will start telling the truth because you need to know it.
OraQuick has an 8% chance of missing HIV. Do you find that to be an acceptable risk? No thank you.
Edit: to make matters worse if someone is positive and they are showing as negative there is a good chance they are in early stage where they can most easily infect someone else. Not what this industry needs.