Federal ban on gay men's blood donation to be reconsidered

[Steinhauer]

It's not just a matter of "lying." Some donors may have blood-borne diseases that they aren't aware of. That's why the Red Cross can't depend on questions only; they need to test the blood.

The problem is, the tests aren't foolproof.

Yes, I tried to explain that. Its a perceived risk and a real risk.

 

[yizuman]

see Babyblue's source. Many people can live with AIDS for over 20 years (more or less).

Why not 40 or 60 more years, don't they have that right?

so can E.Coli and Mad Cow. So can driving and smoking. The only difference is - AIDS will kill you.... in a long time.

Just about any kind of disease can take forever to kill you, but not everyone can handle HIV in the same manner, some die in a few years, others 20 years.
The big difference is HIV can be prevented in most cases except in the case of blood transfusions.

federal law criminalizing AIDS? never heard of this. source please?

My bad, thought is was Federal, but there has been State cases where people have been convicted of knowingly infecting people to the HIV virus.

Like this one....

Man With HIV Gets Life Term for Sex

So yes HIV can be criminalized in court.

The problem is that there are people who find out they are HIV positive tend to not care who they infect as long they are getting their sexual gratification. People can be very irresponsible for their actions.

I've always felt that when AIDS was first discovered in the early 1980s, they should have quarantined them all from the very beginning to prevent a huge & wide spread of a infection rate for the good of the entire population as a whole. Too many people, especially those that have sex with multiple partners and sharing used needles with other users. Irresponsible behavior always results in disaster and lives are needlessly destroyed.

Too late now, so we just have to deal with it in the best way we can, I just hope it won't create a mass human extinction before a cure is ever found. This is a mess that could very well have been prevented.

Yiz

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

Wirelessly posted

What the heck I am reading here? When HIV was discovered, no one knew if they were a carrier or not. There are people who are positive, but were immune to the virus.

It would still spread, whither it's contained or not.

 

[Frisky Feline]

Wirelessly posted

What the heck I am reading here? When HIV was discovered, no one knew if they were a carrier or not. There were people who are positive, but were immune to the virus.

It would still spread, whither it's contained or not.

yea, tell me about it.

 

[Daredevel7]

Who wants to do math!? I do!! I DO!!!
Assumptions:
All gay men give blood.
50% of gay men have HIV. (This is a ridiculously conservative number that Im sure homophobes believe but let’s just assume it for now)
20% of the people who give blood are gay men. (Again very conservative number considering only 50% are men!)
So this means 10% of the people who gave blood just gave HIV.
There is a failure rate of 1 in a million for testing. 20 million people give blood in a given year, so that’s 20 people per year whose tests are inconclusive (it doesn’t mean that they have HIV, it just means their test results are crap). Now what are the chances that those 20 people are going to be one of those 10% people who gave HIV blood?

Result:
%0.00001 chance, meaning MAYBE 2 people per year. And this is with ridiculously conservative numbers……..

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

Wirelessly posted



Good one DD.

The only valid argument is the question of economic behind the testings.

 

[naisho]

Who wants to do math!? I do!! I DO!!!
Assumptions:
All gay men give blood.
50% of gay men have HIV. (This is a ridiculously conservative number that Im sure homophobes believe but let’s just assume it for now)
20% of the people who give blood are gay men. (Again very conservative number considering only 50% are men!)
So this means 10% of the people who gave blood just gave HIV.
There is a failure rate of 1 in a million for testing. 20 million people give blood in a given year, so that’s 20 people per year whose tests are inconclusive (it doesn’t mean that they have HIV, it just means their test results are crap). Now what are the chances that those 20 people are going to be one of those 10% people who gave HIV blood?

Result:
%0.00001 chance, meaning MAYBE 2 people per year. And this is with ridiculously conservative numbers……..

mememe! I farkin' love math! :P
I did some stats earlier too and based on given figures for world population.
Now for some USA number crunching.

Assumption: HIV is prominent in the USA
Fact: About ~1million in the US is known to be infected (1,051,875 as of 2007)
Fact: The USA population is 307 million as of 2009 census.

Percentage of the USA infected: *DRUMROLL* 0.326%.
Somehow this is an extreme threat to mankind in the northern hemisphere. :roll:

 

[netrox]

"Percentage of the USA infected: *DRUMROLL* 0.326%. "

Shocking, isn't it? It remains highly concentrated in the gay community and the black community. More women are getting infected because of their bisexual partners.

Statistically, white heterosexual men have nothing to worry about it.

 

[Steinhauer]

So, you propose that we ban all of these other groups from donation, as well?

I realize you did not ask me that question .... I am assuming because you like to harass koko, but I don't know ...

I think medical professionals (not including psychiatrists) should make that decision.

 

[Steinhauer]

"Percentage of the USA infected: *DRUMROLL* 0.326%. "

Shocking, isn't it? It remains highly concentrated in the gay community and the black community. More women are getting infected because of their bisexual partners.

Statistically, white heterosexual men have nothing to worry about it.

hmmmm .... I wonder what Jeremiah Wright would say

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

Wirelessly posted

"Percentage of the USA infected: *DRUMROLL* 0.326%. "

Shocking, isn't it? It remains highly concentrated in the gay community and the black community. More women are getting infected because of their bisexual partners.

Statistically, white heterosexual men have nothing to worry about it.

Bisexual partners?



That sure spell out homophobia.

 

[Jiro]

Wrong again.....I already explained the hypothetical was using an assumption based on your parameters. In real life that risk would be perceived but as for it's use in the hypothetical it was assumed......again using YOUR preset parameters.

instead of quibbling around... let's settle this once and for all. Based on new parameter I just showed you about Las Vegas having stringent blood screening process and Boise having acceptable standard (lower than LV) due to low AIDS/HIV prevalence rate....

Still going to stick with Boise blood bank?

And going back to the topic.....adding male blood to the donation pool adds statisticall risk....not perceived.

male blood? I'm assuming you meant gay blood.

And none of this says exactly where I said in any way that there was an actual or even perceived risk with saliva or being in a swimming pool.

You made that up.

Your perceived risk is the same perceived risk as other swimmers where he bled in the pool. and the basketball players & Magic Johnson.

 

[Babyblue]

High risk groups of any kind scares me. Due to the fact that the HIV virus can be dormant during the window period. The person can be positive and pass through the screening.

Pressure On Once More to End Gay Blood Donor Ban :: EDGE Boston

All blood received from donors is tested for HIV and other pathogens, but current testing methods cannot detect HIV levels in blood before at least two weeks have elapsed from the time of a person’s initial infection. The chances are extremely low that a recipient could contract HIV from donated blood--but the risk, however small, is still non-zero.

 

[Daredevel7]

So .326% of the US population have HIV. Assuming this percentage also applies to those who gives blood (meaning, the 20 mil who give blood have the same demographics) and with the test failure rate....(1 in a million), that means ....lol.... there's a chance that there will be 1 "test passed" bag of blood with HIV every 15 years!!!!!!

Im cracking up here....

Do y'all really want to start up this stuff for that one bag every 15 years? It's that worth it?

 

[kokonut]

"Percentage of the USA infected: *DRUMROLL* 0.326%. "

Shocking, isn't it? It remains highly concentrated in the gay community and the black community. More women are getting infected because of their bisexual partners.

Statistically, white heterosexual men have nothing to worry about it.

That'd be a little over 1 million infected. And that number could even go up in times of outbreaks as well.

 

[CJB]

It has nothing to do with homophobia or racism if you refuse to accept blood from blacks and gays based on given statistics on their infection rate.

Blacks and gays would be much safer if they accept blood from heterosexual white men than they would if they get it from their own kinds.

It's about public safety.

How is generalizing like that not racist/homophobic? There's a higher raite of imprisonment among blacks but does that make every black person a violent criminal? Yes, there's a higher risk of being HIV+ among blacks and gays but that doesn't mean every black or gay person is HIV+. Plus the screening should take care of that. And the small chance that the HIV+ result is missed because of that two-week window period can happen for a white heterosexual HIV+ donor just as much as it can for a black gay HIV+ donor.

It's about couching racism and homophobia in "public safety."

Efforts should be put into making the testing 100% accurate instead of propagating hatred and limiting the bloo donation pool by banning entire groups of people from donating.

 

[Jiro]

People forget that blood banks are cycled often in short period of time. The red blood cell's shelf life is short - usually up to 1 month or so... depending on blood bank's storage facility and budget. Most blood banks have at most... 3 days worth of blood. and it's hard to do that. That's why we always have shortage in blood supply. However - We do keep stockpile of rare blood type in long-term storage facility which is very expensive.

Blood Facts and Statistics

 

[kokonut]

How is generalizing like that not racist/homophobic? There's a higher raite of imprisonment among blacks but does that make every black person a violent criminal? Yes, there's a higher risk of being HIV+ among blacks and gays but that doesn't mean every black or gay person is HIV+. Plus the screening should take care of that. And the small chance that the HIV+ result is missed because of that two-week window period can happen for a white heterosexual HIV+ donor just as much as it can for a black gay HIV+ donor.

It's about couching racism and homophobia in "public safety."

Efforts should be put into making the testing 100% accurate instead of propagating hatred and limiting the bloo donation pool by banning entire groups of people from donating.

Are you suggesting that Netrox is somehow homophobic for making a factual statement??

 

[netrox]

Efforts should be put into making the testing 100% accurate instead of propagating hatred and limiting the bloo donation pool by banning entire groups of people from donating.

It's like arguing that it's wrong to ban drinking for 18 years old people because there are mature 18 years old drinkers. Surely, there are but the reality is that 18 years old people are likely to abuse alcohol and that's why we increased the drinking age.

 

[TXgolfer]

instead of quibbling around... let's settle this once and for all. Based on new parameter I just showed you about Las Vegas having stringent blood screening process and Boise having acceptable standard (lower than LV) due to low AIDS/HIV prevalence rate....

Still going to stick with Boise blood bank?

Depends.......too many factors and you have already mucked the thread up too much to make sense of it. I will answer by saying that in matters of life and death put me down for the lower statistical risk.

male blood? I'm assuming you meant gay blood.

Yep typo...I will correct. :Oops:

Your perceived risk is the same perceived risk as other swimmers where he bled in the pool. and the basketball players & Magic Johnson.

No.....you accused me of saying something I didn't say. Period.