[luckylion]

> Straight men/women can easily have it and one fuckup and you can be infected

The probability is low though, and apparently there are side effects. We also don't preemptively dish out antibiotics for similar reasons: they won't do you any good unless under very specific circumstances and you will likely experience side-effects. Do no harm.

[nerdjon]

yes there are side effects.

But the plan for prep also specifically includes you going into the doctor every 3 months to not only test for those side effects but also for a full STD panel. (Source: my husband and me are both on prep)

Just saying that "at risk" people should be trying to prevent this ignores a large portion of the population to try to stop its spread.

Thankfully a vaccine is in testing now, but if this was a vaccine most people would probably not question taking it. So why is a pill to protect against something like HIV so much different?

[luckylion]

My point was that "at risk" means "seriously at risk", not "well, you are theoretically at risk, so better safe than sorry". If you're statistically not very likely to be infected, the side effects may outweigh the good.

> if this was a vaccine most people would probably not question taking it

Doctors would, or so I hope, not recommend taking a vaccine with serious side-effects without a reason. You typically don't get vaccinated for Dengue fever when traveling to Helsinki.

[nerdjon]

I can agree with that.

Maybe I should rephrase that, anyone in not in a monogamous relationship (and having sex) should at least discuss it with their Doctor and see if it would be worth them being on.

I find it shocking when I am talking to someone and find out they have no idea that prep even exists.

[armitron]

You should further rephrase that to be:

Anyone not in a monogamous relationship that has (unprotected) anal sex with different men.

Nothing else makes statistical sense. There is such a thing as a precautionary principle for medicine and it goes against most of what you wish to be.