(no subject)

[rivka]

I suppose that I can't really categorize someone as having been infected with HIV through occupational exposure if their occupation was prostitution.

I want to, though. With a whole day of data entry ahead, a girl's got to get her entertainment somewhere.

Comments

[anisoptera.livejournal.com]

Why not? Is it because the job of prostitution is not listed in the goverment job index? Or because it is an illegal occupation?

[rivka.livejournal.com]

Why not? Is it because the job of prostitution is not listed in the goverment job index? Or because it is an illegal occupation?

Actually, the illegality has nothing to do with it - suppose, for example, that someone made his money retrieving needles from hospital sharps containers and cleaning them for resale to addicts, and he got HIV through a needlestick. I'd call that occupational exposure (through an illegal occupation).

But in the case of prostitution, the occupation consists entirely of sexual activity. It makes a lot more sense for demographic purposes to classify the person as having contracted HIV sexually.

Re:

[anisoptera.livejournal.com]

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks.

[ororo.livejournal.com]

Well, that answered my question. :)

[geminigirl]

It's an interesting thought...

my first thought was "well, yeah, it would be an occupational hazzard"

and my second,

"On the other hand, it could be the same kind of thing where they're reluctant to classify HIV transmission as woman to woman because of the 'other risk factors' kind of thing, where one person had needle/works sharing partners, or formerly had male partners and all that'"

Ouch. You made my brain hurt.

[rivka.livejournal.com]

It's an interesting thought...

Hee! I should've known you'd go through the same thought process I did.

my first thought was "well, yeah, it would be an occupational hazzard"

and my second,

"On the other hand, it could be the same kind of thing where they're reluctant to classify HIV transmission as woman to woman because of the 'other risk factors' kind of thing, where one person had needle/works sharing partners, or formerly had male partners and all that'"

Well, yeah. My risk categories are IV drug use, male-female sex, male-male sex, female-female sex, rape, occupational exposure, maternal-fetal transmission, and unknown vector. We ask people to say all that apply, and then we pretty much use our best judgment to classify - in one case, I did actually classify a bisexual woman as having female-female transmission, because she knew she'd had an HIV+ female partner and she regularly used condoms with men. But yeah, I'm usually going to go with the highest-risk possibility - if someone is sharing needles and having female-female sex, I'll definitely classify it as IV drug transmission.

In this case, I figure classifying the risk factor as "male-female sex" makes more sense than lumping her in with the accidental needlesticks.

Ouch. You made my brain hurt.

Hee. Isn't this field fun?

[geminigirl]

Hee! I should've known you'd go through the same thought process I did.

Does it show that much that I miss doing research?

And yes. This is fun. But I miss research.

[kalmn.livejournal.com]

ow. ow ow.

don't make me laugh that hard; it hurts.

[minnaleigh.livejournal.com]

I may not have made this clear over the last week so let me say again, I like you a whole lot!

[jinian.livejournal.com]

But it makes perfect sense!

[redbird]

The problem is that you have to pick one; it clearly is occupational exposure and male-female sex.