[Gay] Gay News from Around the Gay World That is Gay

[Martinus]

currently it's one unit of HIV risk per two million units of blood. i don't think anyone can say what that number would increase by. it could be increased to 1.2 units or 2-3+ units. if it's the latter, then it's a balance of whether the total benefit outweighs a triple (or more) increase in HIV infection by blood transfusion.

That's exactly my point - I don't know if there is a name for this logical fallacy but if there isn't, there should be - an increase from 0.001% to 0.003% is statistically insignificant.

How many extra people being exposed to HIV would be statistically significant?

I don't know. Do you think it's a valid ban where for a populace of, say, 1,000,000, you are excluding 50,000 potential donors (average gay male populace) because of an increased risk for 2 people (assuming you do not screen HIV in each case)?

[Barrister]

currently it's one unit of HIV risk per two million units of blood. i don't think anyone can say what that number would increase by. it could be increased to 1.2 units or 2-3+ units. if it's the latter, then it's a balance of whether the total benefit outweighs a triple (or more) increase in HIV infection by blood transfusion.

That's exactly my point - I don't know if there is a name for this logical fallacy but if there isn't, there should be - an increase from 0.001% to 0.003% is statistically insignificant.

How many extra people being exposed to HIV would be statistically significant?

I don't know. Do you think it's a valid ban where for a populace of, say, 1,000,000, you are excluding 50,000 potential donors (average gay male populace) because of an increased risk for 2 people (assuming you do not screen HIV in each case)?

Depends if they can obtain enough blood while excluding those donors or not.

If they can, then the ban makes sense.

[Martinus]

currently it's one unit of HIV risk per two million units of blood. i don't think anyone can say what that number would increase by. it could be increased to 1.2 units or 2-3+ units. if it's the latter, then it's a balance of whether the total benefit outweighs a triple (or more) increase in HIV infection by blood transfusion.

That's exactly my point - I don't know if there is a name for this logical fallacy but if there isn't, there should be - an increase from 0.001% to 0.003% is statistically insignificant.

How many extra people being exposed to HIV would be statistically significant?

I don't know. Do you think it's a valid ban where for a populace of, say, 1,000,000, you are excluding 50,000 potential donors (average gay male populace) because of an increased risk for 2 people (assuming you do not screen HIV in each case)?

Depends if they can obtain enough blood while excluding those donors or not.

If they can, then the ban makes sense.

We are talking about organ donors.

As for blood, wouldn't it make sense to differentiate based on blood type, too? I guess gay donors with 0 Rh- would be more valuable than AB Rh+ yet the policy is the same for all.

And are similar bans in place for other risk groups, such as black females (the fastest growing HIV infection group in the last decade).

[Jacob]

I don't know. Do you think it's a valid ban where for a populace of, say, 1,000,000, you are excluding 50,000 potential donors (average gay male populace) because of an increased risk for 2 people (assuming you do not screen HIV in each case)?

Absolutely.

Then again, I'm excluded from donating blood as well. Looking at the US Red Cross blood donation page, 38% of the US population is eligible to donate. It's not like like gays are the only people being screened out on the basis of probabilities.

[Jacob]

We are talking about organ donors.

We were talking about blood donors, actually, at least since LaCroix's post.

As for blood, wouldn't it make sense to differentiate based on blood type, too? I guess gay donors with 0 Rh- would be more valuable than AB Rh+ yet the policy is the same for all.

Probably, but honestly I'd trust the various blood services to do better epidemiology and statistical analysis than most commenters.

And are similar bans in place for other risk groups, such as black females (the fastest growing HIV infection group in the last decade).

Can't speak to Black females, but there are all sorts of bans in place for risk groups. As I said, I can't donate blood in Canada due to having been in Europe (not even the UK) while mad cow disease was topical, and because I've visited Africa for too long a period. 38% of the US population is eligible to donate, so it's not like these screens are just aimed at "the icky gays" or anything like that.

[Jacob]

Yeah, just checking eligibility criteria - they don't want the blood of anyone who's spent more than 5 years since 1980 in any European country (including Poland).

Part of the in depth discussion reads as follows:

There is no evidence that CJD can be transmitted from donors to patients through blood transfusions. However, nobody knows for certain that this cannot happen. There is no test for CJD that could be used to screen blood donors. This means that blood programs must take special precautions to keep CJD out of the blood supply by not taking blood donations from those who might have acquired this infection.

So yeah, if they're willing to disqualify anyone who's from Europe (or have spent significant time there) because they don't know if the very rare CJD can be spread through blood transfusions, it doesn't seem too egregious that they also disqualify blood from a source that correlates directly with an increase in HIV transmission.

[Martinus]

I don't know if you realise that, Jake, but people in Europe do donate blood - and not all of them are recent immigrants from other continents. So surely someone is in the wrong here.

Arguing for an unreasonable policy by saying that other policies are also unreasonable is not really convincing. Maybe Canadians are just nuts?

[Eddie Teach]

A former Miss Spain and current 1st Runner Up to Miss Universe came out today as a lesbian and announced her relationship with a house music singer and DJ.



I thought this kind of lesbian couples only happened in movies. 

I prefer the movies that have both partners capable of competing in beauty pageants. 

But serious, non-porno depictions of lesbians seem to be pretty consistent that lesbians don't all have the same aesthetic standards as men. So for all we know, these two find each other equally attractive.

[Barrister]

Marti - Jacob is referencing the Canadian Blood Services restrictions.  You might not know it, but in Canada there was an enormous "tainted blood scandal" back in the 1980s.  Many people were infected with HIV and Hep C, a Royal Commission was ordered, millions in compensation were paid out - all of which is what led to the creation of Canadian Blood Services in the first place.

http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/news/canadas-tainted-blood-scandal

So yeah - they're really sensitive about making sure blood is safe.

But when you talk about organ donations... given how we always hear how desperately short they are for organs, I'd certainly be willing to loosen up the requirements.

[Jacob]

I don't know if you realise that, Jake, but people in Europe do donate blood - and not all of them are recent immigrants from other continents. So surely someone is in the wrong here.

Obviously Europeans donate blood in Europe. However, we were discussing an incident that is governed by North American donation rules, so therefore the American donation rules are relevant.

Arguing for an unreasonable policy by saying that other policies are also unreasonable is not really convincing. Maybe Canadians are just nuts?

What is unreasonable about excluding Europeans from contributing to the North American blood supply?

[Malthus]

A former Miss Spain and current 1st Runner Up to Miss Universe came out today as a lesbian and announced her relationship with a house music singer and DJ.



I thought this kind of lesbian couples only happened in movies. 

I prefer the movies that have both partners capable of competing in beauty pageants. 

But serious, non-porno depictions of lesbians seem to be pretty consistent that lesbians don't all have the same aesthetic standards as men. So for all we know, these two find each other equally attractive.

Can't judge the attractiveness of the woman on top, her hair is in the way - looks okay to me from what I can see, though.

[Jacob]

Marti - Jacob is referencing the Canadian Blood Services restrictions.  You might not know it, but in Canada there was an enormous "tainted blood scandal" back in the 1980s.  Many people were infected with HIV and Hep C, a Royal Commission was ordered, millions in compensation were paid out - all of which is what led to the creation of Canadian Blood Services in the first place.

http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/news/canadas-tainted-blood-scandal

So yeah - they're really sensitive about making sure blood is safe.

I was actually looking at the US rules, which are broadly similar to the Canadian ones. In any case, mitigating risk seems a worthwhile objective.

But when you talk about organ donations... given how we always hear how desperately short they are for organs, I'd certainly be willing to loosen up the requirements.

Yeah, on organ donations it seems reasonable that a different calculus is made. I mean, if the choice is between not getting eyes at all and getting eyes with an extra 0.0001% of HIV or whatever, I'd personally take the risk. As you say, it comes down to the availability of suitable donors there.

But with blood, given the very high volumes? I'm pretty comfortable with very stringent screening criteria and risk management.

[Martinus]

Meh, I don't really have a horse in this race (I had Hep B, so I'm excluded and anyway whenever I give blood for tests, I am uncomfortable) - I just think it's quite unreasonable. The fact that many countries are lifting the ban on gay men donating blood also tells something (or do you find this to be the case of political correctness gone wild?).

[Martinus]

Can't judge the attractiveness of the woman on top, her hair is in the way - looks okay to me from what I can see, though.

The woman on top looks like an ugly blonde Justin Bieber. 

[Malthus]

Can't judge the attractiveness of the woman on top, her hair is in the way - looks okay to me from what I can see, though.

The woman on top looks like an ugly blonde Justin Bieber. 

Judging by her haircut and her ear - which is about all of her you can see?