egafd.com

I don't understand why people are talking about adopting 30 day testing because of the risk of a Darren James situation happening here in the UK. The fact is they *have* 30 day testing in the US, yet still they are talking about having to close down the industry for two months. Surely the Darren James situation shows that 30 day testing is no more likely to contain such an outbreak as 60 days, 90 days or whatever. Condoms only is the only real solution.

Details of the first US industry HIV case, thought to be caused by someone using a fake HIV certificate for over a year:


One of the women who worked with Darren James, Lara Roxx has been confirmed as infected:


Amongst the current atmosphere of fear and worry, it's perhaps worth pointing out that HIV infection is no longer the "death sentence" it was a few years ago. Of course it's not something that one would wish on anyone, but with triple therapy treatment (taking about 40 pills a day, many with unpleasant side effects) the virus can be contained. I know people who have been HIV+ for over a decade and they are no more ill now they than they were when they first tested positive. I think this needs pointing out as many people still believe contracting HIV is fatal. It isn't.

30day testing wont stop infections... That has been my point. 30 day testing is an advance, 7day testing even better, a daily test even better than that - but it doesn't make it "safer", it wont prevent infections - at present, reducing the certificates validity would simply grind things to a halt because we don't have the infrastructure to handle it.

Now the May 1st thing is still being quoted - which I think is too soon... I think we need the infrastructure in place first but perhaps I'm the lone voice on this. I am heartened to hear that Jason (JFT) is on the case with this and I hope he gets the ball moving with considerable momentum - let's hope that events in the US provide an almighty push.

And now we come to the BUT.

30 day certs will NOT stop infections.. but lets just look at the picture over in the US if the 30day standard was 90days...

They've put a lid on things fairly quickly and kept the "at risk" list relatively small... Imagine the infection had taken route and it hade been 70 or 80 days before the next test - HOW LONG WOULD THAT LIST of first generationers be - but worse than that - just how many generations would there be???

It doesn't bear thinking about....

So don't de-cry the logic and the theory behind 30day tests.. It's sound, solid and unquestionable. The only drawback is the practicalities of the system over here as things stand...

Lets hope the infrastructure is imminent.

I agree Jack, 30 Day testing reduces the time some1 could be at risk of infection. Sure, Condoms are a viable way to reduce the risk dramatically, but they are NOT 100% safe, there is always the possibility of a COndom splitting or breaking.

Golostruda is making light of the fact the whole reason for 30 Day testing over 60 or 90 Day testing "Is the Reduce the Time Length" between Tests & therefore, knowing every month you are clean, and NOT every 3 months.

This is the whole point... You dont KNOW you're clean...

The whole point here is to put a lid on things as quickly as possible. A negative test result today doesnt say you're clean today - there are incubation periods for many diseases.

Reducing the frequency between tests means that the infection is flagged up SOONER rather than later and a lid can be put on further infections.

Agreed but in that time period it can then be spread in a pyramid style.
That is why in the US they are now talking 4th & 5th Generation.

Everybody is correct nobody can be 100% certain..with that in mind the best you can do is take every possible step to minimise any risk.

CC.