Anyway, the statistics on risk of contracting HIV from unprotected sex, both with positive and negative partners, have been calculated time and time again. Of course, they depend on various initial assumptions, and those can be argued ad infinitum. When I have made calculations myself, I have come with anything from a 3% chance over a ten-year career to as high as 12%, depending on the assumptions. In short, Tony C's numbers are as good as anyone else's. But, as always, in statistics, they don't tell the whole story. In the current outbreak, there are three HIV positives, and one of them, and I don't care who, is Patient Zero, so there are two HIV positives reported from what, sixty-odd recorded sexual contacts since the virus was first contracted and introduced into the local porn community? And that is before the two-month initial testing period is over. 2 in 65 or so. One-in-33 odds. Care to calculate statistics on the probabilities of contracting HIV from having unprotected sex with any of the quarantine list? And isn't THAT the only really relevant statistic?
I say it's the only relevant statistic because Tony C's other calculation, the risk-reward ratio measuring potential earnings against potential HIV risk profiles, is completely wrong. NO ONE makes the choice to engage in ANY profession on this basis, and not just because they don't get the numbers, or the subtle coercion of the employer, that may be involved. No, because they see statistics that say that unprotected sex bears a miniscule chance of contracting HIV, they make the decision on that basis. Because they see that only, what - six? seven? hetero adult performers have caught HIV in thirty-plus years, and that there are "protections" in the form of testing in place, they think the chances are miniscule. Because they see comments from people like me who say that the low rate of HIV, especially when seen in contrast to the definitely-not-low rates of gonorrhea, chlamydia, NSI, etc., is an epidemiological phenomenon worthy of further study. Your risk-reward analysis is not only unrealistic in the face of the other "data" that influence performers' choices, it ignores the time value of money - more money sooner is worth much more money later, which distorts your model, too. What REALLY happens, what SHOULD happen, is this: suppose you WANT, for whatever reasons, fame, money, sexual preferences, to be a pornstar. Suppose further that condoms are BANNED. Do you make a Tony C risk-reward calculation? Not really. You look at the worst-case scenario, decide if it is an acceptable risk qua risk, not an acceptable point on a sliding risk-reward variable scale, and you insure against the worst possibilities. That could mean using condoms, it could mean buying heavy-duty health or life insurance, it could mean just saying no. Usually, it means, "Fuck it, I want the money!"
The comparison to other inherently dangerous professions is bogus, too. In other dangerous professions, many, many precautions and much training are taken to mitigate the dangers. Remember The Perfect Storm, and the calculation that fishermen have to make between what risks they are willing to run and how much protection equipment they can afford? One thing, though, they are insured to the teeth, because hundreds of them die. And there will always be a perfect storm, there will always be a logging accident, there will always be a drugged-up thug shooting a cop. It is NOT possible to reduce the inherent dangers in these professions to anything approaching zero, no matter what. In porn, use condoms, and the alleged "inherent" danger virtually disappears. Unless that is admitted at the start of the argument, anyone who makes the "assumption of risk" argument or the analogy to other dangerous professions is a person who really doesn't care about other human beings. The right to stay alive really does come before your right to choose to be a skydiver or a fireman. Wear condoms, and your biggest risk on a porn set might be Mike Quasar's breath!
[Link]