John Kerry calls for the blood of gay men

[Martinus]

Right, but why take a risk? A single error in screening could cause tons of people to be infected.

This is so a propos Jaron's post about self-hating homos in the other thread.

[Jaron]

Right, but why take a risk? A single error in screening could cause tons of people to be infected.

While true, such a risk is minimal. You are no more likely to be infected with HIV by a gay persons blood than with a heterosexuals.

Or, would you say that a straight man who whores himself around and has sex with a random woman every night (as is quite common in college culture) is less likely to infect you with HIV than a gay man pursuing this very activity?

Sir? 

[derspiess]

Well that's my point. I'm gay. I don't do anal. I am NOT in a high risk group. So basing a policy on "having sex with other men" (unless by sex you mean only anal sex) is not justified.

You are in a high risk group if you are a gay male.  That does not necessarily mean you are a high risk *individual*.  Do you not understand how risk management works?

To use an unrelated example, my cousin's 18-year old son happens to be a very good driver.  He was well-trained, he's cautious, and has not had an accident.  Yet his insurance premium is sky-high.  Why?  Because statistically, as a young male he is in a higher risk group.

[Jaron]

Well that's my point. I'm gay. I don't do anal. I am NOT in a high risk group. So basing a policy on "having sex with other men" (unless by sex you mean only anal sex) is not justified.

You are in a high risk group if you are a gay male.  That does not necessarily mean you are a high risk *individual*.  Do you not understand how risk management works?

To use an unrelated example, my cousin's 18-year old son happens to be a very good driver.  He was well-trained, he's cautious, and has not had an accident.  Yet his insurance premium is sky-high.  Why?  Because statistically, as a young male he is in a higher risk group.

Hook, line, sinker.

[Jaron]

Or to translate it into his native Polish: Checkmatesky.

[Strix]

Isn't what what all blood tests are though?

The person could just as easily put down they are straight.

The last time I gave blood I could have marked that I have no communicable diseases with a stroke of a pen.

The screening of blood is what is critical, not honesty. Your argument is flawed because we should not discredit gay people as liars while accepting the trustworthiness of straights based upon word alone. Let all who would donate give blood and screen the hell out of all of it.

Yes, the screening of blood is critical. That is why it's better to exclude a high risk group from the process because it reduces the chances of an error.

[garbon]

Right, but why take a risk? A single error in screening could cause tons of people to be infected.

I think it is pretty obvious that people lie all the time and so the risk is still present.

[garbon]

Yes, the screening of blood is critical. That is why it's better to exclude a high risk group from the process because it reduces the chances of an error.

Except that you can't really ever exclude them. We don't wear pink triangles.

[derspiess]

The last time I gave blood I could have marked that I have no communicable diseases with a stroke of a pen.

As a Mexican, I'm sure your blood gets the extra scrutiny, anyway.  Or just goes down the drain.

[The Brain]

I am not convinced that Mart understands how risks work.

[Jaron]

Isn't what what all blood tests are though?

The person could just as easily put down they are straight.

The last time I gave blood I could have marked that I have no communicable diseases with a stroke of a pen.

The screening of blood is what is critical, not honesty. Your argument is flawed because we should not discredit gay people as liars while accepting the trustworthiness of straights based upon word alone. Let all who would donate give blood and screen the hell out of all of it.

Yes, the screening of blood is critical. That is why it's better to exclude a high risk group from the process because it reduces the chances of an error.

The question at hand though is if that label still applies. It was certainly true in the 80s when HIV terrorized gay circles from Los Angeles to London, but in this era of safer sex and awareness, I cannot bring myself to conclude that fucking someone in the ass is any riskier than doing so in the vagine.

So really it isnt just the donation of blood from gays that is being questioned, but the high risk label as well.

[Admiral Yi]

Isn't what what all blood tests are though?

The person could just as easily put down they are straight.

The last time I gave blood I could have marked that I have no communicable diseases with a stroke of a pen.

The screening of blood is what is critical, not honesty. Your argument is flawed because we should not discredit gay people as liars while accepting the trustworthiness of straights based upon word alone. Let all who would donate give blood and screen the hell out of all of it.

The problem as I understand it is that in the past the test for HIV was not sufficiently precise.

I've told this story before.  While in grad school I asked the health clinic about HIV testing.  The doc said since I was straight it would be pointless because of the high probability of a false positive.

[Jaron]

The last time I gave blood I could have marked that I have no communicable diseases with a stroke of a pen.

As a Mexican, I'm sure your blood gets the extra scrutiny, anyway.  Or just goes down the drain.

I doubt it. I always just check "White" on the donation form.

[Martinus]

Well I guess it's a fair point. But this just shows that the policy of charging young people more for insurance is unfair and discriminatory.

That being said, it's a fucking non issue. I wonder why people even bother with it. It's not like gay people are prevented from living their life to the fullest because they don't get milk, cookies and a couple of bucks for their blood.

Meh. I'm nonplused.

[derspiess]

Yes, the screening of blood is critical. That is why it's better to exclude a high risk group from the process because it reduces the chances of an error.

Except that you can't really ever exclude them. We don't wear pink triangles.

Gaydar