MRSA in Locker Rooms

Thank you for this clarity in #83267 – so often what we know to be right is confused or clouded with rhetoric instead of proper discernment.

I think we are called to condemn…although not as often as we do.

I think we are called upon to discriminate, not in the political sense, but in the evaluative process.

We are called to be concerned. We are not called to judge or condemn or discriminate. Educating ourselves on MRSA and what we can do for our homes, families, is a good place to start. And a compassionate response to those (everyone) who are high risk (those who go to hospitals, teachers, students, gay men?, etc..) should be even tempered.

As Christians, aren’t we called to be concerned about any and all human behaviors directly, indirectly and remotely connected to disease?

To be truthful, you and I are probably equally informed on this. I’m not actually bringing anything ‘new’ to the discussion just pointing out things that weren’t actually said and hypothesizing about how it might be spreading this time.

The site that Ann linked to (with your help!) helps to broaden my understanding. One point seemed to be that the virus enters through a skin tear or cut. This would automatically have some conclude that anal tears would be most likely entry point but I theorized that those in the reported group who were part of an AIDS group would always wear a condom. Something I read early on about the Castro area zip code suggested high antibiotic use. I surmised that this might indicate persons with AIDS as well. Most people I know who have AIDS and are on antibiotics have a strong conscience about condom usage also. So, it’s pure conjecture on my part, that it isn’t being transmitted internally partially due to the condom being a barrier. (They are made from the same material as the protective gloves hospital workers wear.)

I was also stuck by the fact that the scientists recommended washing with soap and water yet didn’t say anything about internal cleansing. This led me to believe that they see the transmission as being external rather than internal as well. But, as I already suggested, this is all deductive reasoning. I’m compulsive about reading both what people say and what they don’t say and trying to piece things together from there.

How the multiple partner risks would play in, if my theories played out, would be that it’s the contact of the groin and buttocks areas of partners that would be the transmission point rather than the penis itself. This would be akin to the theory that athletes and prisoners may contract MRSA through sharing towels or perhaps sitting naked where someone else had.

OK, I gather all the parts mentioned in the Annals paper are external: penis, buttocks and perineum. But those findings referred to MSM. Could it be that they did not get it by sexual contact but the bacteria got into those areas? Just asking. Theoretically, I know how it is possible. Practically, it seems a bit far-fetched to have such a specific category — MSM — without any specific bearing on the transmission path.

I must have been writing mine while you were out making Evan’s suggestion work. Way to go! LOL! Now I guess I’ll need to learn the new-fangled way.