Hacker News Reader

Comment by lalaland1125 | Hacker News Reader

Also of note is that most transmission so far appears to have been through male on male sex

> Another puzzle is why almost all of the case clusters include men aged 20–50, many of whom are gay, bisexual and have sex with men (GBMSM).

That means it's probably less contagious if it requires anal sex to transmit.

View on HN

It may be showing up there because a portion of gay men are quite promiscuous. (Sorry, I'm not sure how to put it politely, even as a gay man.) There's not really a heterosexual equivalent to the gay sauna/bathhouse. It has shown up in populations of men who have attended such gay venues, as in the Portugal and Spanish outbreaks. [1] This does not automatically imply it requires anal sex, or even particularly favours anal sex as a vector. Anal sex would obviously count as close contact, of course. But the massages, and hand-genital, and oral-genital contact common in such venues (more so than anal sex, probably) would fit the transmission profile of monkeypox, too.

[1] https://nationalpost.com/pmn/health-pmn/spain-monkeypox-case...

Reading these comments strongly reminds me of the early confusion and moral panic of about 1981-1982, when reports of something called GrID began. The conflation of infection vectors, susceptible populations, and behaviors helped cause years of delay in public health response. Let’s not make exactly those same mistakes 40 years later.

It doesn't require anal sex, it requires prolonged skin-on-skin contact. The factor that makes gay men overrepresented among the current cases is likely to be the number of different sex partners, plus possibly a higher rate of detection because that community has been on high alert for a few days now.

it's worth noting that gay men practice many kinds of interaction that aren't anal sex, and the article does not at all suggest that anal sex was the route of transmission.

I'm happy to see this unflagged, this is a useful caveat and certainly appropriate to add to the discussion

Disclaimer: I'm a bi guy and am pretty okay with any kind of consentuous, safe sex, but (butt?!)...

Oh man that's loaded. Why does everybody always pigeonhole male on male sex together with anal?

Not everybody is doing it, and really, why would you associate (see what I did here?) monkeypox with ass?

Mucous membranes are mucous membranes, and besides that you can't deduce anything without further information on how it transmits.

And after all, anal is a bit like Java, works with all genders.

Pretty lame-ass logic here.

Not quite the discussion I was thinking I'd see here but I've been learning a lot more about the early HIV years. I'm straight leaning but have spent most of my life in gay circles. The health issues and the misinformation and fear of gay lifestyles outside but also inside of gay communities makes clarity so difficult and hard to depersonalize enough to manage safety protocols. Also, when the way someone loves has a high potential to kill them in exotic ways.... people get weird. Groups of people get nasty.

Thank you for your well written humorous point here.

It's worth noting that multiple outbreaks in several countries at the same time in gay communities without all of them attending the same parties should be such a rare occurrence other options should be considered.

Yes, it sounds like there are multiple disconnected infection clusters, with the assumption of a similar mode of transmission in each. (I’m obviously inferring this based on limited thin evidence.)

Consider a hypothetical autocratic regime with a history of criminalizing sexuality, committing human rights violations, and researching biological weapons. If their military felt it was time to deploy an airborne virus within enemy population centers, wouldn’t it make sense to do so simultaneously? And why wouldn’t this regime release it in a class of location that create plausible deniability, maligns a population historically persecuted by the regime, and foments societal conflict in the enemy?

Personally, given the implications, I’m hoping this warfare proves to be more informational than biological.

I would add to your fictional regime that it would have already used chemical and nuclear agents to poison people outside their country.

You're obviously implying that the US did it

I wonder if hiv is related. Has there been any information on whether the individuals have been infected at some point in their lives or are undergoing treatment for it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com