From the perspective of someone who was well educated on the subject when they found out, I can tell you this for sure. No matter how well educated you are on the subject, there is absolutely NOTHING that can prepare you for finding out you're HIV+. It's also a proven fact that the majority of people who discover their status end up going on a mental break that in a lot of cases, without the right people being around IMMEDIATELY to give them the proverbial slap across the face that they will need, they would go suicidal. I know this for fact… I was one of them.
While the concept of such a test does seem like a great idea, I cannot stress enough that they have great potential to become a home suicide kit real fast, especially for people who engage in random sexual acts with partners of an unknown status. It has also been scientifically proven that a person can have contracted HIV and be infectious to others, but not show a positive test result. This "problem" comes directly from how the test works. The test in itself has the unique flaw that it tests for the anti-bodies that the body produces when it becomes infected. These antibodies however are not produced in the body until the virus breaks the system down to this critical "rock bottom" point, at which point the body begins the process of seroconversion, which generates these anti-bodies. In most cases, this can take 2 - 3 weeks, however this is not a concrete time frame. The body can begin seroconversion in as much as 3 months...
In other words... If a person engages in more than 1 sexual fling every 3 months, there is potential for this test to render a false negative, thereby potentially resulting in the transmission of HIV without the knowledge of either person. The sad reality is, this is a common occurrence that happens far too frequently... More frequently than you might expect. Don't let that get you bogged down though. Medical research has proven that the risk of HIV transmission for someone who is on antiretrovirals and has a viral load below 1500 (preferably closer to undetectable) engaging in bareback sex where ejaculation occurs is actually lower than the risk of engaging in protected sex with an HIV+ partner with a high viral load (such as 60,000) and no antiretrovirals. What a lot of the tests and other publications fail to take into account when examining risk assessment is simply this:
Nowadays HIV is a lot like TB… It's only infectious if left untreated!
All in all, it is also proven that the average risk factor for unprotected receptive anal sex where ejaculation DOES occur only constitutes approximately a 1% risk of infection (or 1 in 100). These numbers are based on a viral load of approximately 57,000 and no antiretrovirals. The only time that the risk becomes damn near absolute certainty is in a case where either the top's dick has a sore that exposes a bloody discharge, or if any of the lining of the rectum walls are torn or otherwise aggravated sufficiently to present an abrasion of some sort. These cases are not as common as you may think, and generally only occur when either insufficient lube is used, or when doing something stupid like being the virgin to try and take a 13" and thick cock. Don't fool yourself though because a person's highest transmission potential actually comes BEFORE the point of seroconversion, and generally lasts until a couple of months after they begin antiretrovirals. This directly means that regardless of any test and regardless of any medication, it is always safer to either pull out to bust a nut, or to otherwise wrap it up.
As for the proposed concept behind the test, I must say that I do much prefer the concept of the test from a public health stand point. My reason for this is quite simple really… When going to a doctor's office or to a public health office, once a test result comes back positive, there is a government mandate within North America that requires that the attending medical staff (doctor, nurse, etc) report the results of the test to the public health officer. From my own personal experience, these "public health officers" do not have a sufficient understanding of STI's, and as such, they like to push their own stupid ways onto the person, trying to force them into a number of things (some of which they actually legally can). From this stand point alone, I completely agree with implementing a way to by-pass this Public Health BS, and deal with it under your own terms. It's great to see that there actually are some people out there in the medical field who actually may believe that Public Health has no business in our bedrooms. 
Core
Duo CPU T2450 @ 2.00GHz × 2
