Add This To The Discussion Of Gay Men Donating Blood

[Apple Of Sodom]

Your logic is flawed, as I've demonstrated in previous posts. The risk calculation is not always as dire as you keep claiming it to be with your repetition of that "8,000%" figure, which itself is very misleading.



Curiosity.



.. unless they want to give blood.

Why is 8,000% misleading? 80x == 8,000%. Are you arguing with the data?


Well then I am equally scared of anyone who lived in Mexico, women who have been pregnant, IV drug users, hemophiliacs, prostitutes, people who lived in western Europe since 1980, and those from Cameroon, Chad, Congo, Nigeria et al, anyone who has had sex with those in the above list, and anyone who has ever had a transfusion within the last year.

Or maybe I just see logic in removing groups that are high risk.

 

[silverpig]

Your logic is flawed, as I've demonstrated in previous posts. The risk calculation is not always as dire as you keep claiming it to be with your repetition of that "8,000%" figure, which itself is very misleading.



Curiosity.



.. unless they want to give blood.

0.000036% chance of getting HIV from a non-MSM during a transfusion
0.002250% chance of getting HIV from an MSM during a transfusion

if I did the numbers right.

Here's some other numbers for you:

Prevalence rate of vCJD (mad cow) in Britain: 292 per million
Prevalence rate of HIV in MSM: 7550 per million
Prevalence rate of HIV in straight men: 190 per million

Here you can't donate if you've lived in Britain in a certain time frame due to vCJD.

 

[zsdersw]

Why is 8,000% misleading? 80x == 8,000%. Are you arguing with the data?

It's the highest end of the rate range, not the average.

Well then I am equally scared of anyone who lived in Mexico, women who have been pregnant, IV drug users, hemophiliacs, prostitutes, people who lived in western Europe since 1980, and those from Cameroon, Chad, Congo, Nigeria et al, anyone who has had sex with those in the above list, and anyone who has ever had a transfusion within the last year.

Or maybe I just see logic in removing groups that are high risk.

So I guess we're not doing the label/waiver compromise, huh?

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

It's the highest end of the likelihood, not the average.



So I guess we're not doing the label/waiver compromise, huh?

I'm 100% on board with the compromise. And I'll take some screened "Gay Nigerian IV Drug User who lived in Great Britan" blood if I am bleeding out and they come to me saying "We have NO blood of your type AT ALL. You will die if we do not give you this blood."

 

[silverpig]

I'm 100% on board with the compromise. And I'll take some screened "Gay Nigerian IV Drug User who lived in Great Britan" blood if I am bleeding out and they come to me saying "We have NO blood of your type AT ALL. You will die if we do not give you this blood."

That won't ever work nor will it be an option. If you are so desperate for blood that you can't wait for the next available unit, then you probably aren't conscious, and what's more, even if you are, your lawyer could argue that you weren't in any kind of shape to make a rational decision.