[Question #13777] HIV - Takeout delivery
|
20 days ago
|
Dear Doctors
Over the last few days I have been getting Deliveroo sent to my home as my kitchen is under construction. Last night when the food arrived, I noticed that there was a large dark wet patch on the brown paper bag.
I have no clue what this was, but it was definitely not food or rain. I touched this wet patch and also the handle of the bag.
My concern is if it was blood from the restaurant or Deliveroo driver. It was dark outside when the bag was handed over, therefore I could not see his hands.
I did not wash my hands after handling the bag before I touched and picked at a scab that had opened on my chin. It bled heavily.
I have seen replies on the forum that hand-genital contact is no risk for HIV; and that the virus becomes non-infectious when outside the body. Further, I understand that the virus is not spread through contact with everyday items, even if blood or genital fluids happen to be on them.
I hope I have understood this correctly. Nonetheless, I hope you can help.
Questions:
1. Do I need HIV testing for this?
2. Can I put this out of my head?
|
H. Hunter Handsfield, MD
20 days ago
|
Welcome to the forum. Thank you for your confidence in our services. Thanks as well for reading other forum discussions relevant to your questions. The closing statements of your question indicate you understand -- intellectually at least -- that there was no risk of HIV or other blood borne infections from the events you have described.
---
One of the earliest scientific facts to emerge when HIV/AIDS first appeared in the US in significant numbers (early to mid 1980s) -- before the virus was discovered and the cause was unknown -- was that no affected person had not had intimate sexual or blood contact. That the disease could not be spread by casual contact (hand shaking, social kissing, living with persons with AIDS, contact with blood or fluids in the environment was one of the most prominently emphasized messages from public health and infectious diseases experts to the public. Those facts have been borne out and scientifically reconfirmed repeatedly over the next 40 years. Among the millions of HIV infected persons worldwide, nobody has been documented to have been infected by contact with blood or body fluids other than by intimate contact, shared needles, transfer to babies from infected moms in the uterus or during delivery or nursing, or in very rare cases by massive blood contact.
Those facts alone should reassure you. In addition, your own statement about "replies on the forum" suggests you understand there was no risk. It really doesn't seem plausible that blood or body fluids were the source of the wetness on the delivery bag. (If was blood, that of course would be obvious -- who can mistake blood for other fluids?) But even if somehow that were the case, you could not have been infected. That you didn't see the delivery person's hands means nothing at all.
Those comments make the answers to your two final questions pretty obvious, but to assure no misunderstanding: Do I need HIV testing for this?" Definitely not. "Can I put this out of my head?" Definitely yes; that is exactly what you should do.
I hope these comments are helpful. Let me know if anything isn't clear.
HHH, MD
------
|
19 days ago
|
Thank you for your reassurance, Dr Handsfield, and for the very detailed explanation.
In summary, I understand your comments as:
1. NO RISK of HIV in adults until there is unprotected intercourse, shared needles or exposure to huge amounts of blood (i.e a stabbing victim and not a few drops on an object)?
2. No HIV testing should ever be done unless there has been unprotected intercourse, shared needles or exposure to huge amounts of blood?
3. NO RISK of HIV from touching bleeding scabs or pimples, or from popping pimples
(touching potentially contaminated surfaces or objects just before doing so is irrelevant — i.e a carrier bag or door handle)?
Thank you very much. This forum has been a great find.
|
H. Hunter Handsfield, MD
19 days ago
|
Statements 1 and 3: I agree; you correctly understand.
Statement 2 is partly correct. Without such exposures there is no medical or risk need for testing. However, reassurance alone often is a valid reason for testing, and many persons with much lower risk (and even sometimes with no risk at all) choose to be tested anyway, because the negative result is reassuring and helps reduce anxiety.
---