John Kerry calls for the blood of gay men

[Martinus]

Not exactly related, as it concerns the world, not America, but I thought it would be interesting to post considering some people still believe Aids is a gay disease:

Another argument implied from a statistical fallacy.

It's not contradictory for AIDS to be a rare disease among young hetero women, and for it to also be a top killer of young hetero women.  Do you see why?

I wasn't making this argument. But then again, do you have statistics what's the percentage of gays that have HIV and what's the percentage of hetero woman (worldwide) that have it?

[Martinus]

Example here:

http://www.blackwomenshealthproject.org/aahivaids.htm

It is estimated about 1 in 160 black heterosexual women in the US have HIV. That's 0.6%.

Gay men in the US are estimated to have HIV in between 5-8% (it is debatable if the number is skewed up or not; on one hand, many gay men may be closeted and fearful of disclosing their sexual orientation; on the other hand, closeted/self-hating gay men are more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviours, psychologically). However, among gay black men, the HIV rate is estimated to be as high as 30%. This means that in the end, depending on the estimate a white gay male may be only 2-3 times more likely to have HIV than a black heterosexual woman.

The risk difference is not big enough to justify banning white gay men but allowing black hetero women to donate blood.

[dps]

The risk difference is not big enough to justify banning white gay men but allowing black hetero women to donate blood.

Is that your opinion as a health care professional?  Or is it your opinion as a professional statistician?

[Strix]

Example here:

http://www.blackwomenshealthproject.org/aahivaids.htm

It is estimated about 1 in 160 black heterosexual women in the US have HIV. That's 0.6%.

Gay men in the US are estimated to have HIV in between 5-8% (it is debatable if the number is skewed up or not; on one hand, many gay men may be closeted and fearful of disclosing their sexual orientation; on the other hand, closeted/self-hating gay men are more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviours, psychologically). However, among gay black men, the HIV rate is estimated to be as high as 30%. This means that in the end, depending on the estimate a white gay male may be only 2-3 times more likely to have HIV than a black heterosexual woman.

The risk difference is not big enough to justify banning white gay men but allowing black hetero women to donate blood.

Kind of ironic after our discussion that the fact black males are incarcerated more often than any other groups leads to them engaging in unprotected gay sex and than when they get out they pass along the fever to their shorties.

[Martinus]

Example here:

http://www.blackwomenshealthproject.org/aahivaids.htm

It is estimated about 1 in 160 black heterosexual women in the US have HIV. That's 0.6%.

Gay men in the US are estimated to have HIV in between 5-8% (it is debatable if the number is skewed up or not; on one hand, many gay men may be closeted and fearful of disclosing their sexual orientation; on the other hand, closeted/self-hating gay men are more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviours, psychologically). However, among gay black men, the HIV rate is estimated to be as high as 30%. This means that in the end, depending on the estimate a white gay male may be only 2-3 times more likely to have HIV than a black heterosexual woman.

The risk difference is not big enough to justify banning white gay men but allowing black hetero women to donate blood.

Kind of ironic after our discussion that the fact black males are incarcerated more often than any other groups leads to them engaging in unprotected gay sex and than when they get out they pass along the fever to their shorties.

But that's what am I saying. If in statistical risk analysis (I defer to DGuller here as it is his field) correlation is regarded in the same way as causation, then there is no reason why we should exclude white gay men from donating blood but allow heterosexual black women to do so.

[Strix]

But that's what am I saying. If in statistical risk analysis (I defer to DGuller here as it is his field) correlation is regarded in the same way as causation, then there is no reason why we should exclude white gay men from donating blood but allow heterosexual black women to do so.

There is a major difference between .6% and 5-8%. My issues with homosexuals giving blood has less to do with the potential of them giving tainted blood as it has to do with a lab tech making minimum wage (for their profession) being given a greater chance to make a mistake.

[Martinus]

But that's what am I saying. If in statistical risk analysis (I defer to DGuller here as it is his field) correlation is regarded in the same way as causation, then there is no reason why we should exclude white gay men from donating blood but allow heterosexual black women to do so.

There is a major difference between .6% and 5-8%. My issues with homosexuals giving blood has less to do with the potential of them giving tainted blood as it has to do with a lab tech making minimum wage (for their profession) being given a greater chance to make a mistake.

Did you actually understood what I was saying? I said white gay males. The 5-8% rate is for all gay males (btw, don't use the term homosexuals because it refers to both men and women, and we are talking about gay males here). If 30% of black gay males have HIV (and the rate for Hispanics/Latino gay men is also quite high), this means white gay males must be significantly below 5-8%.

[Josquius]

But that's what am I saying. If in statistical risk analysis (I defer to DGuller here as it is his field) correlation is regarded in the same way as causation, then there is no reason why we should exclude white gay men from donating blood but allow heterosexual black women to do so.

There is a major difference between .6% and 5-8%. My issues with homosexuals giving blood has less to do with the potential of them giving tainted blood as it has to do with a lab tech making minimum wage (for their profession) being given a greater chance to make a mistake.

Couldn't you then sort gay blood into a pile to give extra attention in screening?
Beats banning it outright.

[Strix]

Couldn't you then sort gay blood into a pile to give extra attention in screening?
Beats banning it outright.

Someone would sue over discrimination.

[Strix]

Did you actually understood what I was saying? I said white gay males. The 5-8% rate is for all gay males (btw, don't use the term homosexuals because it refers to both men and women, and we are talking about gay males here). If 30% of black gay males have HIV (and the rate for Hispanics/Latino gay men is also quite high), this means white gay males must be significantly below 5-8%.

We would need actual facts and stats to draw such a conclusion. The 30% of black gay males only make up 5% of the gay male population based on population numbers. The issue is even more confused because do we know if the numbers work out correctly? Blacks make up 10% (or so) of the population. Out of the 10% another 10% are gay. Women make up 50% of the population, so that means 5% of the 10% of the 10% are black gay males. Now, do blacks represent a greater or smaller number of gay males than their population numbers? Is there a 50/50 split between gay black men and women? The same issue arises when looking at the Hispanic contribution to the gay community.

Statistically, gay white males and females should make up a majority of the homosexual population. The numbers, in theory, would work out like this...

10% of the population is homosexual...5% of that 10% is male...1% of that 10% is black...that means .5% of that 1% are black males...2% of the 10% is Latino...which means 1% of the 10% is gay male Latinos...which means 3.5% of the 10% is gay white males...here is where I get lost on the math but it would seem that 5-8% of the 3.5% would be a greater number than 5-8% of the .5% on the surface.

However, like I stated there are a lot of variables. How are blacks counted? Are prisoners considered gay black males? Are pitchers considered gay black males? We would need better data concerning the actual figures to reach any kind of conclusion.

[Fate]

But that's what am I saying. If in statistical risk analysis (I defer to DGuller here as it is his field) correlation is regarded in the same way as causation, then there is no reason why we should exclude white gay men from donating blood but allow heterosexual black women to do so.

There is a major difference between .6% and 5-8%. My issues with homosexuals giving blood has less to do with the potential of them giving tainted blood as it has to do with a lab tech making minimum wage (for their profession) being given a greater chance to make a mistake.

Couldn't you then sort gay blood into a pile to give extra attention in screening?
Beats banning it outright.

I would like to be informed before accepting a gay blood transfusion. It's not fair to the heterosexuals.

[DGuller]

Example here:

http://www.blackwomenshealthproject.org/aahivaids.htm

It is estimated about 1 in 160 black heterosexual women in the US have HIV. That's 0.6%.

Gay men in the US are estimated to have HIV in between 5-8% (it is debatable if the number is skewed up or not; on one hand, many gay men may be closeted and fearful of disclosing their sexual orientation; on the other hand, closeted/self-hating gay men are more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviours, psychologically). However, among gay black men, the HIV rate is estimated to be as high as 30%. This means that in the end, depending on the estimate a white gay male may be only 2-3 times more likely to have HIV than a black heterosexual woman.

The risk difference is not big enough to justify banning white gay men but allowing black hetero women to donate blood.

First, I don't see how you can back in into your estimate of infected percentage of white gay males without knowing the black/white ratio among gay males.

Second, why are you comparing white gay men with black hetero women, if you just want to isolate the gay risk component?  You're trying to take the best of the high risk group, and the worst of the low risk group, to show that they gap in risk between them is lower.  Duh.  There is more than one risk factor, don't pile them on selectively to show what you want to show.

[Faeelin]

First, I don't see how you can back in into your estimate of infected percentage of white gay males without knowing the black/white ratio among gay males.

Second, why are you comparing white gay men with black hetero women, if you just want to isolate the gay risk component?  You're trying to take the best of the high risk group, and the worst of the low risk group, to show that they gap in risk between them is lower.  Duh.  There is more than one risk factor, don't pile them on selectively to show what you want to show.

Why do you hate gays Dguller?

[DGuller]

Why do you hate gays Dguller?

Because it's a fun thing to do.

Seriously, this is one of those cases where I'm arguing against sloppy thinking, not against a position.  I know it looks like I'm arguing for the continuation of the ban, but that's only because arguing against sloppy thinking means arguing against Martinus. 

My position is that gays are at much higher risk of having AIDS, and that's pretty much indisputable.  Whether that risk is best dealt with avoidance or mitigation when it comes to donating blood is not for me to decide.  I have no expertise in that particular matter and I don't have all the relevant information, so I remain neutral as far as the actual position on this question goes.

[Faeelin]

Seriously, this is one of those cases where I'm arguing against sloppy thinking, not against a position.  I know it looks like I'm arguing for the continuation of the ban, but that's only because arguing against sloppy thinking means arguing against Martinus. 

Eh. I'd agree with you but I'm apparently self-hating.