S.F. has nation's highest syphilis rate

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/21/MNG4S380LA1.DTL

<snip>
With a top national ranking it could surely do without, San Francisco has surpassed Detroit as the city with the highest per-capita rate of syphilis in the United States.

Driven by an increase in new cases among gay white men, the nation's syphilis rate rose 9.1 percent in 2002, the second consecutive increase after a decade of decline that had raised hopes the sexually transmitted disease could be eliminated in the country.

With a 127 percent increase in syphilis cases last year, San Francisco jumped from sixth place nationally to first, ahead of Detroit, Atlanta, Newark,

Baltimore and Oklahoma City.

"The job of eliminating syphilis in the United States is not done,'' said Dr. Ronald Valdiserri, a deputy director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

well san francisco has to be known for something.
we are a randy bunch out here.

Just a side note.

Oh well the Chamber of Commerce will just have to settle for the ghonorrea title I guess.

Well, I don't know that for a fact, but we pine for any superlative nowadays... :silly:

my two hometowns used in the same sentence as syphillis and ghonorreah. :silly:

ps- don't look at ME! I'm clean, dammit :evilgrin:

Sometimes, his rantings sound like syphillis-induced insanity.

:-)

S.F. has enough to deal with without being mislabeled as Savage's hometown. Nope, he's from across the bridge.

part of this is simply because San Francisco does a better job of diagnosing and reporting to the local health department. I've lived in places where the VD (remember that term) differed a lot between the poor areas and the middle class areas. Some of that might have been a true difference in rates of disease, but some of it was because the docs at public clinics always sent samples to the lab for diagnosis, because they knew chances were good they wouldn't see that same patient again (because public clinics aren't too good at keeping patients with the same doc; because of high staff turnover, and because poor people have a hard time getting into clinics). The lab reports the VD diagnosis to the health dept (docs almost never report, even though the laws require them to because they hate paperwork and they figure the lab will report.) Now in the middle class areas, by contrast, the patient and doc generally know each other, the doc figures he/she can follow-up with the patient pretty well, so he/she will make a presumptive diagnosis and treat without sending anything to the lab - so it never gets reported, never gets on the patient's "permanent record" either. And so it goes....

part of this is simply because San Francisco does a better job of diagnosing and reporting to the local health department. I've lived in places where the VD (remember that term) differed a lot between the poor areas and the middle class areas. Some of that might have been a true difference in rates of disease, but some of it was because the docs at public clinics always sent samples to the lab for diagnosis, because they knew chances were good they wouldn't see that same patient again (because public clinics aren't too good at keeping patients with the same doc; because of high staff turnover, and because poor people have a hard time getting into clinics). The lab reports the VD diagnosis to the health dept (docs almost never report, even though the laws require them to because they hate paperwork and they figure the lab will report.) Now in the middle class areas, by contrast, the patient and doc generally know each other, the doc figures he/she can follow-up with the patient pretty well, so he/she will make a presumptive diagnosis and treat without sending anything to the lab - so it never gets reported, never gets on the patient's "permanent record" either. And so it goes....

part of this is simply because San Francisco does a better job of diagnosing and reporting to the local health department. I've lived in places where the VD (remember that term) differed a lot between the poor areas and the middle class areas. Some of that might have been a true difference in rates of disease, but some of it was because the docs at public clinics always sent samples to the lab for diagnosis, because they knew chances were good they wouldn't see that same patient again (because public clinics aren't too good at keeping patients with the same doc; because of high staff turnover, and because poor people have a hard time getting into clinics). The lab reports the VD diagnosis to the health dept (docs almost never report, even though the laws require them to because they hate paperwork and they figure the lab will report.) Now in the middle class areas, by contrast, the patient and doc generally know each other, the doc figures he/she can follow-up with the patient pretty well, so he/she will make a presumptive diagnosis and treat without sending anything to the lab - so it never gets reported, never gets on the patient's "permanent record" either. And so it goes....

We're number two, we're number two!

:dunce: