STD rating - Louisiana is top#2

Please be careful guys. Check the below link for more details. LA is on top #2 in the list. I’m afraid.

https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings...ates-by-state/

States with Highest STD Rates

1. Mississippi – 1.3k per 100k
2. Louisiana – 1.1k per 100k
3. South Carolina – 999.8 per 100k
4. Alaska – 990.8 per 100k
5. North Carolina – 898.3 per 100k
6. Alabama – 857.2 per 100k
7. Oklahoma – 842.9 per 100k
8. Tennessee – 836.6 per 100k
9. Georgia – 826.9 per 100k
10. New Mexico – 818.4 per 100k

8 out of 10 with republican governors. Maybe not supporting birth control and condom distribution is counterproductive

Might also help to have a stout Medicaid program so people can get treatment.

Louisiana is a dead state, New Orleans is a dying city.

It's per Capita, that's why. Same with murder. We don't have as many people, so 3 out of 5 when the population is half other states is not really #2. At least that's my understanding.

Always heard Detroit was #1.

The total number of ppl w STD in LA may be lower than another sate with a smaller population ,yes, but the prevalence in the state is very much #2 in the nation. Per capita..#/100k ppl.

The total number of ppl w STD in LA may be lower than another sate with a smaller population ,yes, but the prevalence in the state is very much #2 in the nation. Per capita..#/100k ppl. Originally Posted by Art Lover

I don't know a single person with an STD, or COVID 😂.

Mississippi finally made it to #1 in something! 🤣🤣

It's per Capita, that's why. Same with murder. We don't have as many people, so 3 out of 5 when the population is half other states is not really #2. At least that's my understanding.

Always heard Detroit was #1. Originally Posted by Kimberly Kisses

They specify per 100k, so my understanding of how math works if it is 1 in 10 and you have 20 people, you have 2. If it is 1 in 10 and you have 5, you have 1/2 (ok, not the perfect example). This is the only way to fairly gauge the population to xxx (STD, education level, number of people with 3 nipples). The numbers scale up and down in proportion.
But, I am in the business of finding good head, not good math, so I could be wrong

They specify per 100k, so my understanding of how math works if it is 1 in 10 and you have 20 people, you have 2. If it is 1 in 10 and you have 5, you have 1/2 (ok, not the perfect example). This is the only way to fairly gauge the population to xxx (STD, education level, number of people with 3 nipples). The numbers scale up and down in proportion.
But, I am in the business of finding good head, not good math, so I could be wrong Originally Posted by PlayWithMe42

BRAVO KATIE..BRAVO!!
LOL
XXOO ANNIE

They specify per 100k, so my understanding of how math works if it is 1 in 10 and you have 20 people, you have 2. If it is 1 in 10 and you have 5, you have 1/2 (ok, not the perfect example). This is the only way to fairly gauge the population to xxx (STD, education level, number of people with 3 nipples). The numbers scale up and down in proportion.
But, I am in the business of finding good head, not good math, so I could be wrong Originally Posted by PlayWithMe42

I wasn't aware they did it that way, Math is not my strong suit either. 😂

Well,
If you want to compare the STD rate of infections in New York compared to say La Place it is obvious that NY has way more cases than La Place. So to make those two very different population sizes comparable you must take the number of STD cases in NY and divide with the total population in NY. That gives you the infection rate. Do the same for La Place and you can compare.
It’s easy and that way you can compare cities of different population sizes

They specify per 100k, so my understanding of how math works if it is 1 in 10 and you have 20 people, you have 2. If it is 1 in 10 and you have 5, you have 1/2 (ok, not the perfect example). This is the only way to fairly gauge the population to xxx (STD, education level, number of people with 3 nipples). The numbers scale up and down in proportion.
But, I am in the business of finding good head, not good math, so I could be wrong Originally Posted by PlayWithMe42

According to Google there are roughly 4.6 million people in the state. 1.1k every 100k is about 50,600 people that have STD out of the 4.6 mil.

When you put it into perspective, 1.1k out of 100k is only 1.1% of people. I could be missing something here since im also terrible at math.

I believe this correlation is more likely the reason: https://worldpopulationreview.com/st...ation-by-state

I think this is very accurate. I tested with a potential sd before we did our second date *never happened* and we found out he had chlamydia! He swore up and down he was clean so I initiated us both getting tests and he came back with that. Tried to say he had only been with his wife so that was clear that somebody’s lying. Everything was going to be covered but he was fighting so hard for a bbj from me and I wasn’t going for it! Yikes! Wifey found out too and now he is in the dog house lol. Also an ex friend of mine in little ole Jennings had it too and didn’t know until he got tested. Men are EXTREMELY more likely to be asymptomatic so that is why they didn’t know. Getting tested and safe practices are so important!

I think this is very accurate. I tested with a potential sd before we did our second date *never happened* and we found out he had chlamydia! He swore up and down he was clean so I initiated us both getting tests and he came back with that. Tried to say he had only been with his wife so that was clear that somebody’s lying. Everything was going to be covered but he was fighting so hard for a bbj from me and I wasn’t going for it! Yikes! Wifey found out too and now he is in the dog house lol. Also an ex friend of mine in little ole Jennings had it too and didn’t know until he got tested. Men are EXTREMELY more likely to be asymptomatic so that is why they didn’t know. Getting tested and safe practices are so important! Originally Posted by browniepoints777

That's scary. 😧