Unusual Valentine's Day event in Crown Heights

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)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:24pm Thu 14 Feb 13

P Heath says...

Will we want to hold that record?
Will we want to hold that record? P Heath
  • Score: 0

2:38pm Fri 15 Feb 13

Sam_Walker123456 says...

P Heath wrote:
Will we want to hold that record?
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.
[quote][p][bold]P Heath[/bold] wrote: Will we want to hold that record?[/p][/quote]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. Sam_Walker123456
  • Score: 0

9:16pm Fri 15 Feb 13

red teacosy says...

I wonder how much this is costing, another example of the tax payer having to pick up the bill for others irresponsible behaviour.
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
  • Score: 0

9:51am Sat 16 Feb 13

Best_Name_Ever says...

Perfectly put Sam Walker.
Perfectly put Sam Walker. Best_Name_Ever
  • Score: 0

10:53pm Sun 17 Feb 13

One born every minute says...

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!
[quote][p][bold]red teacosy[/bold] wrote: I wonder how much this is costing, another example of the tax payer having to pick up the bill for others irresponsible behaviour.[/p][/quote]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! One born every minute
  • Score: 0

5:09pm Mon 18 Feb 13

robertspet8 says...

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.
Hopefully early detection will save money in the long run by reducing the spread of the infection.
[quote][p][bold]red teacosy[/bold] wrote: I wonder how much this is costing, another example of the tax payer having to pick up the bill for others irresponsible behaviour.[/p][/quote]Hopefully early detection will save money in the long run by reducing the spread of the infection. robertspet8
  • Score: 0

6:32pm Mon 18 Feb 13

red teacosy says...

One born every minute wrote:
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!
I would rather see the money spent on cancer research, than on someone who was
"too drunk to remember whether they used contraception".
[quote][p][bold]One born every minute[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]red teacosy[/bold] wrote: I wonder how much this is costing, another example of the tax payer having to pick up the bill for others irresponsible behaviour.[/p][/quote]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][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

8:19am Tue 19 Feb 13

jonone says...

red teacosy wrote:
One born every minute wrote:
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!
I would rather see the money spent on cancer research, than on someone who was "too drunk to remember whether they used contraception".
Sounds to me like you could do with testing yourself, given that you are clearly completely clueless about the illness.
[quote][p][bold]red teacosy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]One born every minute[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]red teacosy[/bold] wrote: I wonder how much this is costing, another example of the tax payer having to pick up the bill for others irresponsible behaviour.[/p][/quote]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][/quote]I would rather see the money spent on cancer research, than on someone who was "too drunk to remember whether they used contraception".[/p][/quote]Sounds to me like you could do with testing yourself, given that you are clearly completely clueless about the illness. jonone
  • Score: 0

6:41pm Tue 19 Feb 13

red teacosy says...

jonone wrote:
red teacosy wrote:
One born every minute wrote:
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!
I would rather see the money spent on cancer research, than on someone who was "too drunk to remember whether they used contraception".
Sounds to me like you could do with testing yourself, given that you are clearly completely clueless about the illness.
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!
[quote][p][bold]jonone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]red teacosy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]One born every minute[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]red teacosy[/bold] wrote: I wonder how much this is costing, another example of the tax payer having to pick up the bill for others irresponsible behaviour.[/p][/quote]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][/quote]I would rather see the money spent on cancer research, than on someone who was "too drunk to remember whether they used contraception".[/p][/quote]Sounds to me like you could do with testing yourself, given that you are clearly completely clueless about the illness.[/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

7:34pm Tue 19 Feb 13

jonone says...

red teacosy wrote:
jonone wrote:
red teacosy wrote:
One born every minute wrote:
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!
I would rather see the money spent on cancer research, than on someone who was "too drunk to remember whether they used contraception".
Sounds to me like you could do with testing yourself, given that you are clearly completely clueless about the illness.
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!
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.
[quote][p][bold]red teacosy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jonone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]red teacosy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]One born every minute[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]red teacosy[/bold] wrote: I wonder how much this is costing, another example of the tax payer having to pick up the bill for others irresponsible behaviour.[/p][/quote]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][/quote]I would rather see the money spent on cancer research, than on someone who was "too drunk to remember whether they used contraception".[/p][/quote]Sounds to me like you could do with testing yourself, given that you are clearly completely clueless about the illness.[/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

10:19pm Tue 19 Feb 13

red teacosy says...

jonone wrote:
red teacosy wrote:
jonone wrote:
red teacosy wrote:
One born every minute wrote:
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!
I would rather see the money spent on cancer research, than on someone who was "too drunk to remember whether they used contraception".
Sounds to me like you could do with testing yourself, given that you are clearly completely clueless about the illness.
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!
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.
Have you read the article? ,
"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
[quote][p][bold]jonone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]red teacosy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jonone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]red teacosy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]One born every minute[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]red teacosy[/bold] wrote: I wonder how much this is costing, another example of the tax payer having to pick up the bill for others irresponsible behaviour.[/p][/quote]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][/quote]I would rather see the money spent on cancer research, than on someone who was "too drunk to remember whether they used contraception".[/p][/quote]Sounds to me like you could do with testing yourself, given that you are clearly completely clueless about the illness.[/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Have you read the article? , "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 red teacosy
  • Score: 0

4:40pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Sam_Walker123456 says...

red teacosy wrote:
One born every minute wrote:
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!
I would rather see the money spent on cancer research, than on someone who was "too drunk to remember whether they used contraception".
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.
[quote][p][bold]red teacosy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]One born every minute[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]red teacosy[/bold] wrote: I wonder how much this is costing, another example of the tax payer having to pick up the bill for others irresponsible behaviour.[/p][/quote]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][/quote]I would rather see the money spent on cancer research, than on someone who was "too drunk to remember whether they used contraception".[/p][/quote]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. Sam_Walker123456
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree