Mpox cases are on the rise in King County, and local health officials are urging people that are eligible—and at risk—to get vaccinated.
A Wednesday alert from Public Health Insider, the official blog for county’s public health agency, said 45 new cases of mpox (formerly called monkeypox, a wrong that took the WHO 50 years to right) were reported in King County residents in September—the highest number of cases in the county in single a month since the initial 2022 outbreak. which saw as many as 200 new cases in a month. Case numbers have risen in Chicago, in San Francisco, and New York City as well.
Mpox is a viral infection that causes an often extremely painful skin rash, and sometimes flu-like symptoms. Fortunately, most people recover without treatment in two to four weeks, (there have been no recorded mpox fatalities in King County, according to county data, and only 20 of the 716 recorded cases since 2022 resulted in a hospitalization) but by all accounts, it’s not a virus you want to suffer through if you can avoid it.
And worse, it’s very contagious, especially because you can pass the virus along before you show any symptoms. Mpox is most commonly spread through sexual contact, but can be transmitted through close physical contact with another person with the infection.
Dr. Tim Menza, the medical director at the county’s public health agency and a professor at the University of Washington, said that recent infections include more young adults, many of whom weren’t sexually active or vaccinated during the 2022 outbreak. They’re now more vulnerable, becoming more sexually active where mpox is still present. And, due to the drop in cases since 2022, healthcare messaging hasn’t been as strong.
“Folks who were young, it wasn’t a thing or something they thought they needed to pay attention to in that time,” Menza said. “And the fact that maybe there hasn’t been much messaging around it to kind of keep it in people’s brains as something important.”
A decline in federal support for mpox vaccination and awareness is another possible factor in the spread, Menza said.
Mpox is commonly seen in cisgender men, transgender people, and non-binary people who have sex with men. Folks who have engaged in commercial or transactional sex and folks who have had skin-to-skin or other close contact with someone with mpox are also at higher risk. Anyone in these categories should get the two-dose vaccine.
According to Public Health, the vaccine prevents most mpox infections. If you do contract mpox, the vaccine is highly effective at preventing severe cases. Just like the COVID shot, it takes about two weeks from the second dose for the vaccine to take full effect.
To get the mpox vaccine, contact your healthcare provider to see if they offer it. If you don’t have insurance or if your insurance doesn’t cover the full cost, you can get vaccinated for free at Public Health’s Sexual Health Clinic at Harborview, regardless of immigration or documentation status. You can schedule an appointment at 206-744-3950. Walk-ins are available.
For a full list of clinics offering mpox vaccines, you can visit this page provided by Public Health.
Editor’s Note: This story was updated to clarify that the spike in cases isn’t due to unvaccinated young adults. That demographic is just at higher risk.
“Mpox is commonly seen in cisgender men, transgender people, and non-binary people who have sex with men.”
Translate from Wokese to English:
Mpox is commonly seen in males who have sex with males.
Cis is a slur.
Non-binary people are either biologically male or biologically female.
Transgender people are either biologically male or biologically female.
Everyone should get this vaccine if they can. Mpox will likely evolve to become more transmissible over time, and the vaccine also gives immunity to smallpox, which has technically been eradicated but there are still frozen stocks of the virus and given the state of the world today there is a non-zero chance some lunatic could unleash it at any time.
@1 public health messaging works best when it meets people where they’re at and not based on the complaints of some random bigot online with a bug up his ass about queer people
@2: Pubic health messaging works best when it’s concise and factual, much like technical and medical documentation. No matter what gender identity or expression a person has, “males who have sex with males” is clear to anyone.
@3 you’re wrong but that’s ok. Males who have sex with males is an awkward sounding expression that no one uses because you just made it up. If you don’t see yourself in the messaging that means it’s not for you and that’s ok too. The messaging is reaching the people it needs to.
@4: I don’t have to be in charge of messaging to have the opinion. But yes, “Men who have sex with men” is actually ubiquitous in public health messaging.
My goodness, what will your next reply be?
“Folks” used 3 times in article = “so progressive!”
Ein volk!
Categorizing yourself “non-binary” categorizes everyone into binary or non-binary, thus creating a binary system which makes you binary again.
@4 “Males who have sex with males is an awkward sounding expression that no one uses because you just made it up.”
barfh is wrong again lol, and it’s even grosser than you would imagine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_who_have_sex_with_men
“The alternative term “males who have sex with males” is sometimes considered more accurate in cases where those described may not be legal adults.[2]”
You’re essentially also just whining that Coolidge dollar replaced the word “men” with “males”. Perhaps take it up with the Center for Disease Control and clutch your pearls at them:
“Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM)”
https://www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/msm.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/msm.htm
“Classification of MSM can vary in the inclusion of transgender men and women on the basis of whether men are defined by sex at birth (i.e., transgender women included)”
Therefore, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC),
“transgender women” are actually “men who have sex with men (MSM)”, and not actually “women” at all, when it comes to the attempts to control the diseases prevalent in that “community”.
https://www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/msm.htm
Repeat syphilis infections are common and might be associated with HIV infection, substance use (e.g., methamphetamines), Black race, and multiple sex partners (187). Similarly, gonorrhea incidence has increased among MSM and might be more likely to display antimicrobial resistance compared with other groups (188,189). Gonococcal infection among MSM has been associated with similar risk factors to syphilis, including having multiple anonymous partners and substance use, especially methamphetamines (190). Disparities in gonococcal infection are also more pronounced among certain racial and ethnic groups of MSM (141).”
“HIV Risk Among Men Who Have Sex with Men
MSM are disproportionately at risk for HIV infection. In the United States, the estimated lifetime risk for HIV infection among MSM is one in six, compared with heterosexual men at one in 524 and heterosexual women at one in 253 (191). These disparities are further exacerbated by race and ethnicity, with African American/Black and Hispanic/Latino MSM having a one in two and a one in four lifetime risk for HIV infection, respectively. For HIV, transmission occurs much more readily through receptive anal sex, compared with penile-vaginal sex (192). Similar to other STIs, multiple partners, anonymous partners, condomless sex, and substance use are all associated with HIV infection (193–196). Importantly, other STIs also might significantly increase the risk for HIV infection (197–199). An estimated 10% of new HIV infections were attributable to chlamydial or gonococcal infection (81). A substantial number of MSM remain unaware of their HIV diagnosis (200). Clinical care involving MSM, including those who have HIV infection, should involve asking about STI-related risk factors and routine STI testing. Clinicians should routinely ask MSM about their sexual behaviors and symptoms consistent with common STIs, including urethral discharge, dysuria, ulcers, rash, lymphadenopathy, and anorectal symptoms that might be consistent with proctitis (e.g., discharge, rectal bleeding, pain on defecation, or pain during anal sex). However, certain STIs are asymptomatic, especially at rectal and pharyngeal sites, and routine testing is recommended. In addition, clinicians should provide education and counseling regarding evidence-based safer-sex approaches that have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing STI incidence (see HIV Infection, Detection, Counseling, and Referral).”
I demand that you publicly celebrate buttsex
“(e.g., discharge, rectal bleeding, pain on defecation, or pain during anal sex)”
Maybe don’t stick a dick in an orifice that it isn’t evolutionarily designed to have a dick stuck up into it, and jizzed into, but which is actually for the function of excreting shit (shit, otherwise known as feces, is a foul-smelling body waste product filled with dangerous bacteria and dangerous microbes).
I guess now is when I have to celebrate Bug Chasers in order to be “inclusive”.
Men who sex with men is a common expression that refers to men of any gender or sexual identity who fuck other men. Males who have sex with males is a phrase that raindrop made up just now to split the difference because he is at least smart enough to know that “men” excludes trans women. You can scour the entire internet and you will never find another instance of someone saying males who have sex with males because it sounds like something an alien in a human skin suit would say.
Straight people stick things in non procreative holes all the time because sex is supposed to be fun — you’ll understand one day — but if men weren’t meant to get fucked in the ass there wouldn’t be a g spot up there
@13: “Males who have sex with males is a phrase that raindrop made up just now”
sure thing buttfucker, how many more times do you want to be proved wrong?:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_who_have_sex_with_men
“The alternative term “males who have sex with males” is sometimes considered more accurate in cases where those described may not be legal adults.[2]”
Regarding the footnote #2:
http://www.unaids.org/en/media/unaids/contentassets/dataimport/pub/briefingnote/2006/20060801_policy_brief_msm_en.pdf
“Men who have sex with men” refers to any man who has sex with a man, thus accommodating a variety of sexual identities as well as those who do not self-identify as homosexual
or gay. In some contexts, “males who have sex with males” may be a more accurate definition, since programming may be directed at males who are not yet adults (individuals
under 18 years of age).”
“because he is at least smart enough to know that “men” excludes trans women.”
Not according to the CDC, they literally “INCLUDE” “trans women” in their classification of “men who have sex with men”:
https://www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/msm.htm
“Classification of MSM can vary in the inclusion of transgender men and women on the basis of whether men are defined by sex at birth (i.e., transgender women included)”
@13: It doesn’t matter who’s trans or not as everyone knows what sex they are, male or female, or what gender they are male or female.
@17 I don’t know what else to tell you but public health messaging always address their target audience respectfully, the way they identify themselves. Stay mad i guess.
@16 bro you just spent your saturday night googling about gay sex to win an argument about mpox vaccine messaging but I promise you no one says “males who have sex with males” in any context, congratulations for finding a reference to it buried in a wikipedia post though great work
@17: Whether it’s male or men, it’s better than obfuscating with terms related to gender identity and expression rather than their biological sex which is an immutable constant.
Public health messaging has been vulnerable to political groups with agendas for decades. Especially from the democrats.
@18 – you can whine about it all you want, but I’m still right and you’re still wrong.
19 no really you’re supposed to treat people with respect if you want them to take you seriously but cry harder buddy
20 if you’re so correct after all your research into gay buttsex why didn’t you share an example of an actual person using males who have sex with males in a sentence
@21- “if you’re so correct after all your research into gay buttsex why didn’t you share an example of an actual person using males who have sex with males in a sentence”
Okay, go cry about it to the United Nations (UNAIDS is a United Nations organization):
http://www.unaids.org/en/media/unaids/contentassets/dataimport/pub/briefingnote/2006/20060801_policy_brief_msm_en.pdf
“Men who have sex with men” refers to any man who has sex with a man, thus accommodating a variety of sexual identities as well as those who do not self-identify as homosexual
or gay. In some contexts, “males who have sex with males” may be a more accurate definition, since programming may be directed at males who are not yet adults (individuals
under 18 years of age).”
@21a: How is clear concise language about risks of diseases between men having sex disrespectful to men?
@21b: Now you’re getting pathetically desperate since your arguments failed under the weight of common sense and logic.
@22: Touché – barth is done, he can’t recover now without appearing even more pathetic.
“Men who have sex with men” has been a phrase since the height of the AIDS epidemic. It was intended as a way to address men on the DL who did not consider themselves gay.
But really – 21 comments about public health terminology on a Saturday night? I thought my life was dull….
Get the shot. Or be a conspiracy ridden bore and don’t.
“Get the shot. Or be a conspiracy ridden bore and don’t”
I don’t need the shot, because I’m not a male who has sex with males.
Biped dear, don’t sell yourself short. I’m sure that even you can find someone if you really try.
I hear that the Boys and Girls Clubs Z aren’t picky, but I’d definitely get the shot before engaging with that crowd.
Oh dear. That dreadful autocorrect. I really need to proof more carefully.
That second paragraph should have read “I hear that the Boys at Club Z aren’t picky, but I’d definitely get the shot before engaging with that crowd.”
Mrs. Vel-DuRay regrets the error.
Yes, please do not cruise the Boys and Girls Club, especially if you’re 18 or older.
I’ll most likely regret wading into this toxic waste dump of a comment thread, but the reality is that plenty of heterosexual couples engage in anal sex, and plenty of gay and bi men don’t. I thought even the religious right had more or less abandoned this particular canard. However you identify, if you’re sexually active you should probably consider getting the shot.
@39: Club Z is a gay bathhouse on Pike St across from The Eagle bar.
Monkey pox has nothing to do with anal sex. You get it from literally just touching. My asexyual friend got it on his neck and chest from hugging someone at a bar in Ptown when they were both shirtless and the other guy had no other symptoms yet. It doesn’t matter if you have a penis or not… and it certainly doesnt matter if you put your penis in someones butt or not.
“My asexyual friend got it on his neck and chest from hugging someone at a bar in Ptown when they were both shirtless and the other guy had no other symptoms yet.”
Seems like “males who have sex with males” activities.
22 ???? you already posted this and it’s just a suggestion for alternative phrasing. I asked you to find an example of actual public health messaging applying this terminology irl. Surely as the smartest guy in the room you understood the prompt, no?
But really this is neither here nor there because public health messaging is still going to address people as cis, trans and non-binary not just “males” no matter how hard you guys cry about it. What’s most important is that you spent part of your weekend googling about gay sex because i dared you to lol
23 why is it so upsetting to you that they address people as their preferred identities in messaging that isn’t meant for you?
@30 Yes, I know. It was a small attempt to find humor in Mrs. Vel-DuRay’s unfortunate typo.
33 and 34 – It’s Monday morning barth, get a life
36, it’s Monday afternoon and you’re here too, after spending the entire weekend dodging the question but declaring victory anyway. Wouldn’t it be easier to explain why you’re so butthurt over messaging that isn’t for you?
37: All the explanations are in the preceding comments. If they’re not up to your satisfaction, that’s your problem because nobody else is interested in belaboring over what already we’ve babbled about.
38 no, you’ve explained why you think the messaging is bad for you personally, but you’re not the target demographic. Why is it so upsetting to you that public health professionals are addressing their audience as they self-identify?
@39: Re-read @38.
I read it just fine the first time, thanks. Why do you care so much about messaging that isn’t for you and why are you afraid to admit it?
@41: The messaging is essentially about for men who have sex with other men (which includes me) but they can’t bring themselves to be succinct as in prior sexual health advisories (see @25) and use policy driven language instead. This is just my opinion barth.