Protection Question

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

The OP probably knows if dad already has herpes. If so, maybe it’s irrelevant. But if dad does not have herpes it could be relevant.

I am the offspring of a neonatologist. I have myself worked in NICUs and L&D, I’m not a medical professional. But I have been at the bedside. I know these conversations happen as a result of risk factors, doctors don’t go around telling new parents not to kiss their babies unless an apparent risk to the baby exists.

We can agree to disagree. This is just my opinion based on my own experiences.

I do not understand why you have singled me out. If you recognize that medical advice is to refrain from kissing babies if you have HSV, and you recognize that it is a *real health concern. Why do you take issue with what I have to say, but not with Mags statement which described herpes being some irrelevant nuisance and not a real health issue?

Do you find what I have to say more harmful in some way?

You misunderstand.

Most people have herpes. Specifically HSV1. Common Cold sore virus. They don't know when they're shedding the virus.

For that reason, advice nowadays is that nobody kisses neonates. Especially not on the face. Because anyone could give it to them even if they don't have an active cold sore.

Does that help clarify my perspective and why I am saying that this blowjob incident is irrelevant?

The dad could a) already have it and b) shouldn't be kissing the baby anyway if you follow current medical advice.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

Kit Tarka Foundation | Think Hands And No Kisses

Visiting a new baby? Remember your T-H-A-N-K-S: Think Hands And No Kisses! Fnd out more and join our campaign here.

www.kittarkafoundation.org

 

[Inaniel]

You misunderstand.

Most people have herpes. Specifically HSV1. Common Cold sore virus. They don't know when they're shedding the virus.

For that reason, advice nowadays is that nobody kisses neonates. Especially not on the face. Because anyone could give it to them even if they don't have an active cold sore.

Does that help clarify my perspective and why I am saying that this blowjob incident is irrelevant?

The dad could a) already have it and b) shouldn't be kissing the baby anyway if you follow current medical advice.

I do think I understand what you’re saying. I think your saying that because precautions should already be in place the disease is irrelevant.

I do have a different perspective. I do not think precautions make disease irrelevant. And not just with herpes, that is my general perspective.

For example, I do not think masks make Covid irrelevant. And I do not think condoms make STIs irrelevant…

The THANKS principal that you linked to is a public health initiative, I do believe the medical advice given to a new parent with a recently diagnosed HSV infection would be more invasive and could involve medication for parents and or baby. The instruction is not going to be a simple as “don’t kiss the baby”.

Precautions are what we tell the public to try and decrease disease incidence among a population. But precautions are not fully protective. And that is why I do not think precautions make disease irrelevant.

For example if you live with someone who has Covid, you can both mask. That would be a precaution, but it may not be effective in preventing you from getting Covid. It would be ideal if the roommate did not have Covid.

We don’t know if the dad already has herpes, but if he doesn’t have herpes it would be ideal if he did not contract the disease it at this time. Because if he does get herpes, precautions may not prevent him from infecting the baby. And even treated, neonatal herpes caries a 5% mortality rate. In my mind that is significant enough to make it a relevant disease which inspired me to make a counterpoint to Mag’s statement.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

I do think I understand what you’re saying. I think your saying that because precautions should already be in place the disease is irrelevant.

I do have a different perspective. I do not think precautions make disease irrelevant. And not just with herpes, that is my general perspective.

For example, I do not think masks make Covid irrelevant. And I do not think condoms make STIs irrelevant…

The THANKS principal that you linked to is a public health initiative, I do believe the medical advice given to a new parent with a recently diagnosed HSV infection would be more invasive and could involve medication for parents and or baby. The instruction is not going to be a simple as “don’t kiss the baby”.

Precautions are what we tell the public to try and decrease disease incidence among a population. But precautions are not fully protective. And that is why I do not think precautions make disease irrelevant.

For example if you live with someone who has Covid, you can both mask. That would be a precaution, but it may not be effective in preventing you from getting Covid. It would be ideal if the roommate did not have Covid.

We don’t know if the dad already has herpes, but if he doesn’t have herpes it would be ideal if he did not contract the disease it at this time. Because if he does get herpes, precautions may not prevent him from infecting the baby. And even treated, neonatal herpes caries a 5% mortality rate. In my mind that is significant enough to make it a relevant disease which inspired me to make a counterpoint to Mag’s statement.

The disease isn't irrelevant, that's why we have no kissing advice; the incident where the dad gave a person a blowjob is irrelevant. It has no bearing on the baby contracting herpes.

There is no accurate test for herpes anyway. Not unless you have active sores to test.

So sure we can talk all day about neonates and herpes and what parents can do to prevent transmission. But that's totally separate to the dad's decision to have oral sex with someone when he is unsure of their herpes status. Unless you know you have herpes, that's the same position we are all in.

I think this focus on the dad potentially giving the baby an STI through this one incident is more about his choice to spring the Poly thing on his pregnant wife, which is admittedly shitty. But we can say that without saying that he caught a disease and will give it to his poor baby.

It crosses my mind that the fact the woman involved is not cis may be the thing that is making people so sure she has herpes and has given it to him, and now he will give it to the baby.

As I've said, baby is much more likely to get it from a family member or friend who kisses them.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

The THANKS principal that you linked to is a public health initiative, I do believe the medical advice given to a new parent with a recently diagnosed HSV infection would be more invasive and could involve medication for parents and or baby. The instruction is not going to be a simple as “don’t kiss the baby”.

No, regular advice is if you know you have herpes and an active sore, don't kiss the baby and wash your hands.

THANKS advice is nobody ever kiss the baby, regardless of whether you have an active sore or have never had an outbreak. THANKS advice goes further than regular advice. They are saying no kissing. Not conditional kissing. Because we don't know who has herpes so we treat everyone as a potential source all the time.

This is typical medical advice for someone who knows they have herpes and is around a newborn:

If you develop a cold sore or have any signs of a herpes infection, take these precautions:

• do not kiss any babies
• wash your hands before contact with a baby
• wash your hands before breastfeeding
• cover up any cold sores, lesions or signs of a herpes infection anywhere on your body to avoid passing on the virus

So as you can see, they're saying if you know you have it, don't kiss or touch the baby etc. THANKS are saying it doesn't matter about what you know, just don't do it.

​

 

[Inaniel]

It crosses my mind that the fact the woman involved is not cis may be the thing that is making people so sure she has herpes and has given it to him, and now he will give it to the baby.

I don’t think the dad has herpes from a one time oral encounter. I understand it’s quite unusual to contract HSV-2 above the waist. This herpes business all began with a one sentence response I made directly to Mag’s in disagreement about the herpes virus itself being an inconsequential disease. My only influence from OP was the pregnancy.

I think risk tolerance is an individual assessment, so I don’t see any single position discussed as being right or wrong. Other than Mag’s of course. Because herpes is obviously a real health issue and that is verifiable. But risk tolerance is personal preferences

 

[JaneQSmythe]

Late to the conversation, but I just wanted to clarify a few medical points for any future readers.

While it used to be true that HSV-1 was usually oro-labial and HSV-2 was usually uro-genital this has shifted over the last several decades (presumably as a result of changes in sexual behaviours). Either strain can infect any location, including areas other than the mouth/genitals. (For instance, a herpetic whitlow is an infection of the cuticle of the fingernail.) Some information may be coming from outdated sources.

The risk of newborns contracting HSV from kissing / touching by anybody after they are born has been well addressed.

The primary medical concern for the pregnant partner would be that a partner contracts oral or genital HSV from another partner (via oral sex, penetrative sex, kissing, cuddling or any other route) and then passes the infection to a pregnant person's genitals (by whatever means) causing a PRIMARY (first time) genital HSV outbreak during pregnancy. (In this particular case, husband contracts HSV from oral sex/kissing and then performs oral sex on pregnant wife.) THAT is, indeed, a huge deal. The fact that many people have HSV and don't know it and that barrier methods do not reliably prevent transmission means that an excess of caution is prudent when it comes to pregnancy.

Latent (inactive) HSV, like VZV (varicella zoster virus - which causes chickenpox and reactivates as shingles), "hibernates" in neural ganglia and therefore is not detectable on skin surfaces unless there is (or is shortly going to be) an outbreak. There are two types of tests for HSV. A PCR swab test is used if there is a lesion/rash on the surface of the skin or mucus membrane and confirms the presence of the HSV virus. The other test is a blood test for antibodies. It does distinguish between HSV-1 and HSV-2, but it does not help determine where the virus is hiding. And since, as mentioned above, a person can have either or both viruses in any location (and, in fact, in multiple locations) and HSV is incredibly common, the test has limited clinical utility. That being said, you can certainly request the bloodtest from your healthcare provider, as knowing a completely negative status can give you a data point for that exact moment in time. HSV does not survive long outside of the human body so a person is unlikely to contract HSV from contaminated objects (toilet seats, towels, etc - although I would still avoid sharing utensils/glasses (oral) or sex toys during an outbreak).

Antiviral medications, such as valacyclovir, are very safe and are effective in suppressing outbreaks, and thereby transmission, of HSV. We routinely use antiviral prophylaxis (preventative treatment) during the last month of pregnancy to prevent genital outbreaks at the time of delivery in women with known HSV. An active genital outbreak is a contraindication for vaginal delivery and necessitates a Cesarean delivery, ideally before rupture of membranes.

Final thought: We really, REALLY need a vaccine!