I had no antivirals until my eighth year. The two H+ women I'd been with told me that acyclovir never helped them, so I didn't bother trying it.
>I was just wondering, if you've been exposed to the virus
>over and over by having sex a lot during the period when the
>other person had an outbreak, does that necessarily mean
>that there would be more latent viral DNA in the ganglia?
Gotta be real careful about words like "necessarily" with this kind of thing. I'm pretty sure the answer to your question is unknown, but yeah, I think it's possible that multiple inoculations of the virus in a short time could result in a more severe case. There's no way we can test this (in humans).
>Or is the amount of latent viral DNA in the ganglia depended
>on anything else?
There are probably a lot of factors that influence that. Things to consider would include the amount of virus on the skin of the source partner, the susceptibility of the skin on the, um, destination(?) partner (is it mucous membrane, keratinized skin, or are there any abrasions?), whether anything has been done recently to reduce the amount of virus on the source partner (antiviral meds, microbicidal gel, recent washing), immune system of the receiving partner, and probably other things.
Note that I mentioned a couple of things that can be controlled - antivirals are known to reduce the copy numbers of virus on the skin. Microbicides should do the same, if they ever get to market. I didn't mention condoms above, but those should reduce exposure, too. Results from the Valtrex transmission study showed that use of meds or condoms made it more likely that transmissions would be asymptomatic. The likely explanation is that the size of the inoculating dose had an effect on this.