Sex and the coronavirus: Some important questions answered

Could wearing a mask during sex lower the risk of coronavirus transmission? Some common queries answered

Last week, we asked for your questions about sex and the coronavirus. You had many.
 

Common queries involved the levels of precautions that one could theoretically take to reduce exposure during sex. But don’t worry: It’s hard to imagine we’ll all have to have sex in decontamination suits with appropriate cutouts going forward.
 

Several people wondered if avoiding kissing or wearing a mask during sex may lower the risk of coronavirus transmission. We don’t know. What we do know is risk starts when you get within six feet. If one person is infectious, the air and the bed — or any surface on which you have sex or sleep — will be contaminated with droplet nuclei.
 

“But, wait!” some of you have said, “what if we don’t sleep in the same room, and we manage sex standing up, not facing each other and neither of us needs to steady themselves against a surface?”
 

While I salute your core strength, you are still in the same room, breathing the same air — and breathing heavily on each other — and thus you have assumed risk.
 

“What if I use an N95 mask?” a few of you asked. Please don’t. Health care workers are putting themselves at risk to provide medical care because they don’t have enough of this equipment. If you have a stash of N95s, the sexiest thing to do is to donate them to your local hospital.
 

Now, on to your other questions.

“What is the likelihood of a Covid-19 baby boom around Christmas?”

Highly unlikely.
 

We’ve all heard about so-called blizzard babies and furlough fertility. The belief is when we’re stuck inside with another person, people quickly turn to sex. And if you are heterosexual, fertile and not using contraception, the result is a baby boom nine months later.
 

Except, cooped-up conceptions are a myth.
 

The fable may have originated from the New York City blackout of November 1965, where there were observations of labour and delivery units being deluged nine months later. However, once the data was analysed, there was actually no baby boom.
 

But, you may say, what we’re experiencing is different from a single night or two of being homebound because of a blackout or blizzard.
 

The best comparison is likely from the influenza pandemic of 1918. Afterward, there was a decrease in birthrate of five per cent to 15 per cent in the United States and in three Scandinavian countries.
 

There are believed to be two causes (keep in mind there may be other factors that have been missed considering we are looking at data from a hundred years ago): First, an increased risk of first trimester miscarriages because of illness during the pandemic (we have no information to tell us there is an increased risk of miscarriage with Covid-19, so please don’t extrapolate and panic).
 

Second is something we may see again: Less sex as a result of stress — economic uncertainty, illness, you name it — and the reduced availability of sexual partners. That one may sound familiar, and thus, a baby boom toward the end of 2020 or in early 2021 seems unlikely.
 

“I’ve read that the protease inhibitor in PrEP protects against coronavirus. Does that mean people on PrEP (or HIV-positive people using the same medications as part of their treatment) can continue to have sex without being as worried?”
 

No.There is no evidence to suggest the medications in PrEP are useful in protecting against coronavirus.
 

©2020 The New York Times News Service