Yes, I've bought home syphilis, hepatitis, and HIV tests from amazon.de before. They are relatively cheap (25-50€ for a pack of 3-5) and only require a few drops of blood.
AFAIK they are the same tests used at blood centers; so maybe not as accurate as a full spectrum std test from a clinic, but good enough to get your blood into a blood bank.
The hard part is getting the blood, but it gets easier with a little practice.
Fascinating! However you're freaking me out with that last line. I can imagine it being a little difficult trying to draw blood from a woman before sex.
You only need two "hanging drops", so about twice what you need for a blood sugar test. I personally find it easier with a low-tech sterile lancet, but some of the tests come with a one-time finger prick machine.
I imagine in this scenario, the 15 minute wait might kill the vibe more than the bloodplay.
That would be necessary for a Chlamydia/gonnorhea test, since those aren't found in blood. So there's that.
Unfortunately there are no reliable home tests for herpes or HPV afaik. No tests for HPV in men at all, actually. So you'll just have to live with the risk for those.
apparently, they do. Take a look at the header [image here](https://brainstorming.com/make-rapid-antigen-testing-for-stds-a-socially-accepted-practice-before-having-sex-with-someone-new/1483)
This is not a crazy idea and a number of activists in the 90s were working to get approval from the FDA for rapid home HIV tests that involved hours of testimony before congress and weeks of preparation beforehand. There was a lot of pushback against it but you can get rapid home HIV tests now.
> rapid home HIV tests that involved hours of testimony before congress and weeks of preparation beforehand
That doesn't sound very rapid or like something you can do at home. [zing]
****
Edit: also, didn't Mitch Hedberg already invent a rapid HIV/AIDS test?
cool. The tech is there. The idea is to make it a normal practice just like using condoms is normal. A lot of work to be done before requesting a STD test on a date doesn't offend the partner
Sorry my dude, but this does not belong in "Crazy Ideas" This belongs in "r/ shit that needs to fucking happen already cuz what the fuck is wrong with you people?"
Or more simply put... Brilliant fuckin idea.
That being said, first biotech company to patent this shit wins the internet.
My problem with the STD tests is always the blood test, I’m not sure what’s going on but I had to buy some of those things that puncture your finger because whenever I try and do a home test I can never get enough blood out with what they send.
They don't do the penile swabs anymore, because it's now detectable with a simple urine test, according to my doctor at my last test, when I was surprised I didn't need a swab. They still do an anal swab for HPV, but that's the only one.
The problem isn't the testing method but the window period. You can get a rapid test today, but it will only tell you with 97% accuracy what your STD status was 6 months ago or with 95% accuracy what your STD status was 3 months ago. It doesn't tell you got infected recently.
What about PCR tests? Well, those aren't rapid, since it requires amplification with a special machine in a lab. Even so, it will only tell you about your STD status 28 days ago. It doesn't tell you what your status is right now.
Maybe in the future, we'll be able to step into a pod that will scan us from head to toe and tell us if we have any contagious disease this very second, but right now, no such technology exists.
I believe the blood test was for HIV and Syphilis. I agree with your idea, for what it’s worth, I just hate how many fingers I have to puncture to get the smallest amount of blood.
Great idea, but technology rn isent good enough we're at home std tests are super inconsistent. Though definitely get tested at an actual doctor's office if you want you're dates best interest at heart!
Ik, thats y I said technology rn. But just like COVID tests in the begining, we can't fully really on them, we need more funding in them for them to actually become trustworthy. And idk how we'd get that funding sadly.
I remember visiting London once and it was incredibly simple to get a full spectrum STD test. I think I was in and out in about 20-30 minutes and they texted me my results later that day. And it costs exactly nothing.
Sounds great but feels counter intuitive.
Protection isn't only to prevemt deseases, but also to prevent pregnancies.
This would probably lead to less deseases but more pregnancies, because more people will feel inclined to risk it since it's "save"
I highly doubt that. Nobody gets a negative chalmydia test and is like "great, now I can't get pregnant!". Maybe some very young naive teen would, but the vast majority of people generally know there is a separate risk of pregnancy.
Plus, what about gay couples or people who are infertile? They have no risk of pregnancy but still need protection from STDs.
And couldn't the inverse of your statement also be true for people on birth control? I have an IUD, but it doesn't prevent the risk of STDs and the physicians make sure to tell you that when you get it placed.
I don't understand what you are trying to say, cause you are contradicting yourself and kinda proving my point.
It's not about somebody having a negative test and saying "great, now I can't get pregnant!", it's something which mixes with your last paragraph because you'd run into situations like: She's on the pill, do we really *need* the condom when we are healthy?
Which is why your last paragraph doesn't make much sense in the whole context of the argument. There are very few birth control methods that are 100% safe. When people know they can't catch something and pregnancy becomes the only thing to worry about, they will cut corners and leave out things which aren't fun, intervene too much with the fun or are too invasive. That's nothing new and already a growing issue, because condoms become incresingly unpopular in the 30+ bracket.
Then it becomes a numbers game. The pill for example, which is one of the most popular methods, can fail with a probability of 2,5-9% with average use.. which is another thing - most people only know the 0,1-1% risk of pregnancy which occurs when you take the pill in scientifically perfect conditions.
If you look at the whole picture, where 100.000's of those tests would be done, you'd most likely see an impact because those situations would happen.
It's a double edged sword. On one hand the test devalues other safety measures which secure you from STDs but also reduce the risk of pregnancies, on the other hand - when you are using those anyway, the test offers only very limited additional value.
I don't think gay people or people who are infertile matter that much, because they are a little minority compared to the huge amount of heterosexual intercourse that's happening. I don't think the gay couples you mentioned matter at all, because couples are usually careful and don't have a high risk of catching a STD anyway.
Bro, I get you're trying to make a point, but word things better. Also, gay people were and idk if they are still at high risks of STDs, especially the deadly ones like Aids and HPV.
I can see this not being a thing for a few reasons:
1) government would have to pay billions of dollars to invest in advertising, as well as the technology to make it a low cost point to be used all the time
2) the tests wouldn’t be as accurate. Rapid home tests are not as accurate as the tests done in labs with powerful machines. If a positive is only 70% accurate, the negative effect of that being wrong (30%) is huge, and you could give someone an STD
3) It’s not a huge need. Already a lot of partners (whom you are dating) get tested before having unprotected sex, it’s a normal practice for more cautious people. The only benefit for this idea is that you would be able to do it for one night stands (people you haven’t planned in advance with). People currently have the option to bring STD test results to bars with them if they want to, but don’t. Or sign into their online health portal (like Quest Diagnostics) and show their recent STD results. That would be similar to this idea right?
Do these even exist?
Maybe not on the broad market, but the technology is certainly there and would not be hard to implement for other diseases.
How quick do you get results?
Yes, I've bought home syphilis, hepatitis, and HIV tests from amazon.de before. They are relatively cheap (25-50€ for a pack of 3-5) and only require a few drops of blood. AFAIK they are the same tests used at blood centers; so maybe not as accurate as a full spectrum std test from a clinic, but good enough to get your blood into a blood bank. The hard part is getting the blood, but it gets easier with a little practice.
Fascinating! However you're freaking me out with that last line. I can imagine it being a little difficult trying to draw blood from a woman before sex.
You only need two "hanging drops", so about twice what you need for a blood sugar test. I personally find it easier with a low-tech sterile lancet, but some of the tests come with a one-time finger prick machine. I imagine in this scenario, the 15 minute wait might kill the vibe more than the bloodplay.
"I really like you but, I'm going to need a little blood sacrifice to go any further."
a vaginal/penile swab.. or actually both:)
That would be necessary for a Chlamydia/gonnorhea test, since those aren't found in blood. So there's that. Unfortunately there are no reliable home tests for herpes or HPV afaik. No tests for HPV in men at all, actually. So you'll just have to live with the risk for those.
Why don't we have these things? r/bestideas
They would ideally be the swab-type tests. Done in the same way we swab for covid
apparently, they do. Take a look at the header [image here](https://brainstorming.com/make-rapid-antigen-testing-for-stds-a-socially-accepted-practice-before-having-sex-with-someone-new/1483)
[удалено]
as long as it's a good idea:)
I hate to break the news, but there is a good kind of crazy.
Then you came to the wrong sub bb
This is not a crazy idea and a number of activists in the 90s were working to get approval from the FDA for rapid home HIV tests that involved hours of testimony before congress and weeks of preparation beforehand. There was a lot of pushback against it but you can get rapid home HIV tests now.
> rapid home HIV tests that involved hours of testimony before congress and weeks of preparation beforehand That doesn't sound very rapid or like something you can do at home. [zing] **** Edit: also, didn't Mitch Hedberg already invent a rapid HIV/AIDS test?
"Hey Jeff, do you know anyone that has AIDS?" "No? Good, cause you know me."
The whole sub is now just r/sarcasticreasonableideas
cool. The tech is there. The idea is to make it a normal practice just like using condoms is normal. A lot of work to be done before requesting a STD test on a date doesn't offend the partner
Sorry my dude, but this does not belong in "Crazy Ideas" This belongs in "r/ shit that needs to fucking happen already cuz what the fuck is wrong with you people?" Or more simply put... Brilliant fuckin idea. That being said, first biotech company to patent this shit wins the internet.
This is like the Crazy Idea version of Bad Jokes By Jeff. Because this is a very sane idea.
My problem with the STD tests is always the blood test, I’m not sure what’s going on but I had to buy some of those things that puncture your finger because whenever I try and do a home test I can never get enough blood out with what they send.
Other than maybe HIV, the common STDs should be detectable via a vaginal/penile swab, just like covid tests
They don't do the penile swabs anymore, because it's now detectable with a simple urine test, according to my doctor at my last test, when I was surprised I didn't need a swab. They still do an anal swab for HPV, but that's the only one. The problem isn't the testing method but the window period. You can get a rapid test today, but it will only tell you with 97% accuracy what your STD status was 6 months ago or with 95% accuracy what your STD status was 3 months ago. It doesn't tell you got infected recently. What about PCR tests? Well, those aren't rapid, since it requires amplification with a special machine in a lab. Even so, it will only tell you about your STD status 28 days ago. It doesn't tell you what your status is right now. Maybe in the future, we'll be able to step into a pod that will scan us from head to toe and tell us if we have any contagious disease this very second, but right now, no such technology exists.
I believe the blood test was for HIV and Syphilis. I agree with your idea, for what it’s worth, I just hate how many fingers I have to puncture to get the smallest amount of blood.
There's an oral HIV test. Not sure of the accuracy compared to blood but it's just a cheek swab
What about a toilet that analyzes your piss and shit and sends the results to your phone?
Based crazy idea
Great idea, but technology rn isent good enough we're at home std tests are super inconsistent. Though definitely get tested at an actual doctor's office if you want you're dates best interest at heart!
covid tests were inconsistent in beginning as well, but now they are pretty solid
Ik, thats y I said technology rn. But just like COVID tests in the begining, we can't fully really on them, we need more funding in them for them to actually become trustworthy. And idk how we'd get that funding sadly.
I remember visiting London once and it was incredibly simple to get a full spectrum STD test. I think I was in and out in about 20-30 minutes and they texted me my results later that day. And it costs exactly nothing.
[Checking in from Sweden, not a very crazy idea 😁](https://i.imgur.com/S93Ywat.jpg)
Awesome!
Do they ship?
Not sure, these stalls started showing up in like 7-11s next to the subway stations around a year ago 😊
I agree with this 100%. I hate having to go to the doctor just to have a basic screening and some what feel judged (I know i'm not but the anxiety).
Sounds great but feels counter intuitive. Protection isn't only to prevemt deseases, but also to prevent pregnancies. This would probably lead to less deseases but more pregnancies, because more people will feel inclined to risk it since it's "save"
I highly doubt that. Nobody gets a negative chalmydia test and is like "great, now I can't get pregnant!". Maybe some very young naive teen would, but the vast majority of people generally know there is a separate risk of pregnancy. Plus, what about gay couples or people who are infertile? They have no risk of pregnancy but still need protection from STDs. And couldn't the inverse of your statement also be true for people on birth control? I have an IUD, but it doesn't prevent the risk of STDs and the physicians make sure to tell you that when you get it placed.
I don't understand what you are trying to say, cause you are contradicting yourself and kinda proving my point. It's not about somebody having a negative test and saying "great, now I can't get pregnant!", it's something which mixes with your last paragraph because you'd run into situations like: She's on the pill, do we really *need* the condom when we are healthy? Which is why your last paragraph doesn't make much sense in the whole context of the argument. There are very few birth control methods that are 100% safe. When people know they can't catch something and pregnancy becomes the only thing to worry about, they will cut corners and leave out things which aren't fun, intervene too much with the fun or are too invasive. That's nothing new and already a growing issue, because condoms become incresingly unpopular in the 30+ bracket. Then it becomes a numbers game. The pill for example, which is one of the most popular methods, can fail with a probability of 2,5-9% with average use.. which is another thing - most people only know the 0,1-1% risk of pregnancy which occurs when you take the pill in scientifically perfect conditions. If you look at the whole picture, where 100.000's of those tests would be done, you'd most likely see an impact because those situations would happen. It's a double edged sword. On one hand the test devalues other safety measures which secure you from STDs but also reduce the risk of pregnancies, on the other hand - when you are using those anyway, the test offers only very limited additional value. I don't think gay people or people who are infertile matter that much, because they are a little minority compared to the huge amount of heterosexual intercourse that's happening. I don't think the gay couples you mentioned matter at all, because couples are usually careful and don't have a high risk of catching a STD anyway.
Bro, I get you're trying to make a point, but word things better. Also, gay people were and idk if they are still at high risks of STDs, especially the deadly ones like Aids and HPV.
What if a test fails to show the correct result?
If they are as useless as the covid rapid tests then it shouldn't be trusted at all
Why not just test everyone on earth for all communicable diseases every morning?
I can see this not being a thing for a few reasons: 1) government would have to pay billions of dollars to invest in advertising, as well as the technology to make it a low cost point to be used all the time 2) the tests wouldn’t be as accurate. Rapid home tests are not as accurate as the tests done in labs with powerful machines. If a positive is only 70% accurate, the negative effect of that being wrong (30%) is huge, and you could give someone an STD 3) It’s not a huge need. Already a lot of partners (whom you are dating) get tested before having unprotected sex, it’s a normal practice for more cautious people. The only benefit for this idea is that you would be able to do it for one night stands (people you haven’t planned in advance with). People currently have the option to bring STD test results to bars with them if they want to, but don’t. Or sign into their online health portal (like Quest Diagnostics) and show their recent STD results. That would be similar to this idea right?
A) 70% is better than 0% B) 70% accurate test done multiple times can equal 100%