Clinic takes part in world record attempt today (From Basingstoke Gazette)
When news happens, text BAZ and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Unusual Valentine's Day event in Crown Heights
1:00pm Thursday 14th February 2013 in News By Helen Morton
AS VALENTINE’S Day events go, it’s certainly different. Today, a Basingstoke clinic will be part of a world record attempt for the most number of chlamydia screenings in 24 hours!
Solent NHS Trust is attempting to set the world record as part of their ‘Keep Calm, Get Tested’ screening campaign.
It is estimated that around one in 14 young people in the region have the sexually transmitted infection (STI), which can cause infertility if left untreated.
Statistics released by the trust show that half of the young people surveyed in Hampshire have said they regretted having unprotected sex, or have been too drunk to remember whether they used contraception.
Having any form of unprotected sex can put people at risk of catching chlamydia, which is the most commonly diagnosed STI in the UK.
Rebecca Perrin, chlamydia lead nurse at Solent NHS Trust, said: “It is important to get tested for chlamydia, even if you have no noticeable symptoms.
“Chlamydia can go unnoticed in men and women for years and can cause long-term damage – including infertility in women - and pain if it’s not diagnosed and treated quickly.
“Despite a lack of symptoms, chlamydia is easy to detect and treat. It is important that young people understand that they can be checked for the infection for free by simply giving a urine sample and they do not have to undress or go through any physical checks, which they may be worried about.”
Screenings as part of the world record attempt will be available in Crown Heights Sexual Health Centre, Alencon Link, Basingstoke between 10am and 5pm today. For more details about getting tested, visit letstalkaboutit.nhs.uk.
Comments(12)
Sam_Walker123456
says...
2:38pm Fri 15 Feb 13
P Heath wrote:I am not sure if you have understood that the record attempt is for the greatest number of screenings not for the greatest number of people with chlamydia! So yes we would want to hold the record for trying to detect and prevent the spread of this STI.
Will we want to hold that record?
red teacosy
says...
9:16pm Fri 15 Feb 13
Best_Name_Ever
says...
9:51am Sat 16 Feb 13
One born every minute
says...
10:53pm Sun 17 Feb 13
red teacosy wrote:I know what you are saying, but at the end of the day we have all done something that could be considered unhealthy. With something like this it could be protecting undeserving people from infection, such as where a partner cheats etc.
I wonder how much this is costing, another example of the tax payer having to pick up the bill for others irresponsible behaviour.
My old fella had a snotty nose a few years back and it was sorted courtesy of the NHS. I pay my taxes so it is nice to get something in return every once in a while!
robertspet8
says...
5:09pm Mon 18 Feb 13
red teacosy wrote:Hopefully early detection will save money in the long run by reducing the spread of the infection.
I wonder how much this is costing, another example of the tax payer having to pick up the bill for others irresponsible behaviour.
red teacosy
says...
6:32pm Mon 18 Feb 13
One born every minute wrote:I would rather see the money spent on cancer research, than on someone who was
red teacosy wrote:I know what you are saying, but at the end of the day we have all done something that could be considered unhealthy. With something like this it could be protecting undeserving people from infection, such as where a partner cheats etc.
I wonder how much this is costing, another example of the tax payer having to pick up the bill for others irresponsible behaviour.
My old fella had a snotty nose a few years back and it was sorted courtesy of the NHS. I pay my taxes so it is nice to get something in return every once in a while!
"too drunk to remember whether they used contraception".
jonone
says...
8:19am Tue 19 Feb 13
red teacosy wrote:Sounds to me like you could do with testing yourself, given that you are clearly completely clueless about the illness.
One born every minute wrote:I would rather see the money spent on cancer research, than on someone who was "too drunk to remember whether they used contraception".red teacosy wrote: I wonder how much this is costing, another example of the tax payer having to pick up the bill for others irresponsible behaviour.I know what you are saying, but at the end of the day we have all done something that could be considered unhealthy. With something like this it could be protecting undeserving people from infection, such as where a partner cheats etc. My old fella had a snotty nose a few years back and it was sorted courtesy of the NHS. I pay my taxes so it is nice to get something in return every once in a while!
red teacosy
says...
6:41pm Tue 19 Feb 13
jonone wrote:Whilst I bow to your superior knowledge of Chlamydia, I still don’t think that something that could easily be prevented in many cases Should be treated at a cost to an NHS which is already stretched to breaking point, if people want to go out, get drunk and catch STDs, fine by me but don’t expect the rest of us to pick up the tab!
red teacosy wrote:Sounds to me like you could do with testing yourself, given that you are clearly completely clueless about the illness.
One born every minute wrote:I would rather see the money spent on cancer research, than on someone who was "too drunk to remember whether they used contraception".red teacosy wrote: I wonder how much this is costing, another example of the tax payer having to pick up the bill for others irresponsible behaviour.I know what you are saying, but at the end of the day we have all done something that could be considered unhealthy. With something like this it could be protecting undeserving people from infection, such as where a partner cheats etc. My old fella had a snotty nose a few years back and it was sorted courtesy of the NHS. I pay my taxes so it is nice to get something in return every once in a while!
jonone
says...
7:34pm Tue 19 Feb 13
red teacosy wrote:The fact that you think you need to be drunk to pick up chlamydia clearly proves my point. The point of screening is that people may not know they have it as it does not always present symptoms and can lie dormant for many year. They did not have to have been drunk to catch it in the first place, though your constant references to sex and drunkeness perhaps suggest that's the only way you get any. Then again, thick retards do seem to shag prolifically in Basingstoke as any social housing area proves.
jonone wrote:Whilst I bow to your superior knowledge of Chlamydia, I still don’t think that something that could easily be prevented in many cases Should be treated at a cost to an NHS which is already stretched to breaking point, if people want to go out, get drunk and catch STDs, fine by me but don’t expect the rest of us to pick up the tab!
red teacosy wrote:Sounds to me like you could do with testing yourself, given that you are clearly completely clueless about the illness.
One born every minute wrote:I would rather see the money spent on cancer research, than on someone who was "too drunk to remember whether they used contraception".red teacosy wrote: I wonder how much this is costing, another example of the tax payer having to pick up the bill for others irresponsible behaviour.I know what you are saying, but at the end of the day we have all done something that could be considered unhealthy. With something like this it could be protecting undeserving people from infection, such as where a partner cheats etc. My old fella had a snotty nose a few years back and it was sorted courtesy of the NHS. I pay my taxes so it is nice to get something in return every once in a while!
red teacosy
says...
10:19pm Tue 19 Feb 13
jonone wrote:Have you read the article? ,
red teacosy wrote:The fact that you think you need to be drunk to pick up chlamydia clearly proves my point. The point of screening is that people may not know they have it as it does not always present symptoms and can lie dormant for many year. They did not have to have been drunk to catch it in the first place, though your constant references to sex and drunkeness perhaps suggest that's the only way you get any. Then again, thick retards do seem to shag prolifically in Basingstoke as any social housing area proves.
jonone wrote:Whilst I bow to your superior knowledge of Chlamydia, I still don’t think that something that could easily be prevented in many cases Should be treated at a cost to an NHS which is already stretched to breaking point, if people want to go out, get drunk and catch STDs, fine by me but don’t expect the rest of us to pick up the tab!
red teacosy wrote:Sounds to me like you could do with testing yourself, given that you are clearly completely clueless about the illness.
One born every minute wrote:I would rather see the money spent on cancer research, than on someone who was "too drunk to remember whether they used contraception".red teacosy wrote: I wonder how much this is costing, another example of the tax payer having to pick up the bill for others irresponsible behaviour.I know what you are saying, but at the end of the day we have all done something that could be considered unhealthy. With something like this it could be protecting undeserving people from infection, such as where a partner cheats etc. My old fella had a snotty nose a few years back and it was sorted courtesy of the NHS. I pay my taxes so it is nice to get something in return every once in a while!
"half of the young people surveyed in Hampshire have said they regretted having unprotected sex, or have been too drunk to remember whether they used contraception".
You show your true colours with your comments about social housing, many people who live in social housing are decent citizens, who work hard and contribute to society, they are the people who help fund the NHS
Sam_Walker123456
says...
4:40pm Mon 25 Feb 13
red teacosy wrote:Which cancer research? Smoking related, drinking related, eating related, life style related? All of these are self-inflicted and are not infectious. Whereas chlamydia is extremely infectious and can be unwittingly caught and spread even by responsible people.
One born every minute wrote:I would rather see the money spent on cancer research, than on someone who was "too drunk to remember whether they used contraception".red teacosy wrote: I wonder how much this is costing, another example of the tax payer having to pick up the bill for others irresponsible behaviour.I know what you are saying, but at the end of the day we have all done something that could be considered unhealthy. With something like this it could be protecting undeserving people from infection, such as where a partner cheats etc. My old fella had a snotty nose a few years back and it was sorted courtesy of the NHS. I pay my taxes so it is nice to get something in return every once in a while!
P Heath says...
4:24pm Thu 14 Feb 13