How accurate is 92%?
If your life was on the line, would you feel comfortable with 92% survival rate?
I tested negative for HIV on this home kit, but 8% people with HIV test negatively. Should I go get tested again just to be sure? Or should I stop worrying.
Thanks.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtu.be
twitter.com
>How accurate is 92%?
It's about 92% accurate I believe
Test a 2nd time to be sure if you're that unconfortable with that 8% chance and leave it at that.
Put it in terms I can understand.
For example, "92% of people getting shot with a 9mm in chest will survive"... So like 1 out of 10 will die? I don't wanna get shot then...
It's actually 91.7%.
Them shits are like 50$.
I can go to a clinic and claim I'm a drug addict and they will do it for free because I would qualify me as high risk.
If anyone can into maths, can you count probability of me getting it against the test?
I had like maybe 5 exposures at 0.11%, and 10 at 0.04%.
Also, there could have been exposure to a high viral load, which increases the chance by 26 times.
Ok OP here, I did the maths.
So in case all of them had hiv, and none of them were acute hiv:
(11/2000)(1/250)(83/1000)=913/500000000 which is 0.0018% odds of me having it.
In case all of them had acute hiv:
(143/1000)(13/125)(83/1000)=154297/125000000 which is 1.2344% of me having it.
So I'm anywhere between 0.0018% and 1.2344%
So what are the chances of them having acute HIV infection if the acute infection occurs after 2 weeks of acquiring HIV, and lasts for 2 to 3 weeks? Probably fairly low that I nailed them in that time period. What are the chances of them all having it and keeping quiet? What are the chances of them not knowing?
I am never having sex again.
Bro, just forget about. If you feel yourself start to get sick then go see a doctor. Till then, just live your life as if you really had HIV.
Oh btw, HIV is a fag virus invented by God to punish homos
google "PrEP"
I know about it, but it's not gonna help me if I already have it.
Ok OP here.
Just found out that trannies have the highest HIV rates, even higher than gays and niggers. But still it's only about 20% of them that have it, and majority live in the South(not me). So that means the chance is even lower than I calculated because I assumed they all have it.
I'm just not gonna worry about it since the chances are fairly low, and never bang. Problem solved.
This is your punishment for your degeneracy. You realize that it can lead to cancer right? And you realize that you'll still test negative during the first 5 months of acquiring HIV, right?
What, HIV can lead to cancer?
And stop fear mongering, 3 months is good enough in majority of cases.
try it again, if it comes up negative again you're probably in the clear
92% accurate is 92% accurate.
>that math
Not how math works at all, user.
odds of avoiding five 11% occurrences and ten 4% occurrences is [(89)^5(.96)^10] = 37.12%
>62.88% chance of not avoiding
but
>5% chance of this figure passing a 91.7% screening
all in all ~5% chance your test is wrong and you have the hiv (assuming your figures were correct)
How did you actually come to these original exposure statistics, user? Did you do that math wrong too? Did you take into account demographic data or transmission rates by sex act?
Spell out exactly what you did with how many people (include race/age group/orientation/noteworthy lifestyle info) and I can clean these numbers up for you.
OK thanks user, I used this:
>the chances of the top contracting the virus from a single encounter are 1 in 909 (or 0.11 percent)
I fugged 2 white trannies twice each without a condom. From 10 trannies of different races I got bareback blowjob and fugged them with a condom on.
They were in their 20ies, some white, some Islanders. They were heterosexual trannies, so pretty much ghey men with higher hiv chances.
Lifestyles - the 2 white ones seemed educated and didn't do drugs, the others were craigslist randoms so pretty much the worst.
Oh i was always top. They all "promised" they didn't have HIV, and were freaked out because I kept bringing it up lel.
HERE IS SOME PERSPECTIVE OF THE ACCURACY OF THE TEST
skip in to see, if ur not stupid youll understand.
tl:dw take 2
youtube.com
forgot link
You're really probably fine, user.
White MTFs have an 11% HIV rate.
Your odds of contracting HIV from topping an HIV positive person is also 11%
This puts your odds of contraction per encounter at 1.21%
>compounded by 4
an overall ~4.7% chance of contraction
>after a 91.7% accuracy test
~0.3% contraction
>If they both had HIV for sure
3.6% contraction
>wtf grad school bitches in here tonight
The chance of contraction from receiving oral sex is so negligible to not bother calculating. Definitely not going to add any significant digit to stated chances.
It's not 11%,:
>Insertive anal sex, gay men, partner unknown status
0.06% (1:1666)
>Insertive anal sex with condom, gay men, partner unknown status
0.04% (1:2500)
But chances can be higher (26 times higher) if the partner has had Acute Retroviral Syndrome which appears 2 weeks after contraction and lasts 3 weeks. What are the chances they had ARS?
Op is a fag youtu.be
That's not how statistics works you dumb fuck. For your chance of survival to be 92% while 8% of people who have HIV test negatively the majority those who decide to test it would need to have it.
You tested negatively, which means that your chance of not having it equals [amount of people who test negatively and do have it]/[amount of people who tested negatively].
TL;DR: probability that OP will be kill is way less than 8%.
This is the test they made.
out of 4999 people had HIV, and 88 out of 96 tested positively. 8 people got a false negative, which is where the 92% figure comes from
The probabilities you are quoting here are the odds of insertive anal sex generalized to all gay men (though not sure of your particular source on these numbers). These are the odds of you putting your dick through a random-encounter glory hold with no idea what kind of ass is on the other side.
If you know that the person is a white MTF transgender you can apply much more specific statistics.
I am taking these statistics from the CDCs most recent sources.