Once upon a time, a trim fortysomething blonde woman with sparse freckles, a warm smile, and turtle earrings at a walk-in health clinic told us our HIV test would only be able to determine infections that took place over three months ago and not, however, whether last week’s hook up just endangered our lives. Such were the pitfalls of HIV testing then: According to the CDC, it took at least three (and up to six) months for your body to produce enough HIV antibodies after infection for a blood test to detect them. But now, the British HIV/AIDS organization Terrence Higgins Trust says they’ve got their hands on a new “rapid” test that can determine infections that took place just four weeks prior.
We’re not sure how this works, exactly. But: While you still won’t know how dangerous last week’s dong was, you will be able to ditch the condoms sooner into a monogamous relationship. If you’re that sort of risk taker.
Charlie
Four weeks PRIOR? That is a pretty cool test. It will make it so much easier to plan my social calendar 🙂
cristobal
the “window period” is the worst thing about an HIV test, because you’re practically told that your result wasn’t conclusive unless you were sex-free for three months. Although most counselors told me and my friends that six weeks was usually pretty accurate. Glad they’ve gotten it down to four weeks.
Qjersey
Your doctor can give you a PCR test that is usually used to monitor viral load for HIV (and Hep C, etc.).
The window period for this test is about 5 days (as it takes about that long for HIV to get into the bloodstream from your naughty bits).
But you’ll have to pay for it yourself. Last I heard that would be about 300 bucks, and you’ll have to wait a week to get the results.
Which would be better… rapid tests so people get their results (because when people have to come back, so many don’t…and some are positive) OR a shorter window period with a PCR test?
daftpunkydavid
@Qjersey: great point. and it’s unfortunate that governments the world over use the window period of traditional, cheaper hiv tests to deny gay males the opportunity to donate blood, organs etc.
BobP
As a person who has worked in the HIV field for 15 years, and was an HIV counselor for 5 years, I find this article shocking.
I guess that condoms are out of style or something, since no one mentioned them. I had to get out of the counseling world because I couldn’t bear people putting themselves at risk the way, it appears, many of the posters do.
RNA and DNA PCR results are accurate, wuick and expensive.
A condom is much cheaper and you won’t have to wait for results before jumping into this weeks monogamous relationship.
Cristobal- the worst thing about an HIV test is not the inconvenient wait, it is the positive result. How many times have you tested, by the way?
cristobal
@BobP:
I practice safe sex. I usually get tested twice a year. I didn’t mean to be, insensitive, by saying that the worst thing is the wait, when obviously, for some people, it’s the positive result.
I practice safe sex, and have no need to worry when I get tested, but still, it’s the reality of it all, coupled with the wait, that usually sets things off in a panic. That’s all I was saying.
scott ny'er
speaking of safer sex.
What do you guys think of oral sex with a condom? Yea or nay.
tinkerbell
Definitely nay. Of course, I’m in a monogamous, long-term relationship and don’t use condoms.
tinkerbell
@cristobal: At 6 weeks post-infection, the Elisa test is about 95% accurate.
BobP
@cristobal: Glad to hear it.
dontblamemeivotedforhillary
What’s up with Nurse Ratchett? BTW – I slept with Tinkerbell’s bf and can’t remember if we were safe (all that Champagne darling!) Sorry, he begged me!