John Kerry calls for the blood of gay men

[DGuller]

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. 

Sometimes being self-hating just means being objective. 

[grumbler]

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. 

You'd agree with the argument against sloppy thinking, except that that would make you self-hating?

[grumbler]

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. 

Sometimes being self-hating just means being objective. 

Ouch! 

[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. 

You'd agree with the argument against sloppy thinking, except that that would make you self-hating?

According to Marti, yes.

[grumbler]

According to Marti, yes.

Marti thinks you are a sloppy thinker?

Hate to say this, but if one gives cred based on personal experience, he would know.  They don't come much sloppier, when it comes to thinking.

[Martinus]

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.

Errr, are you suggesting that sexual orientation is influenced by race? 

The natural assumption should be that the percentage of gays among black and among white men is most likely similar if not the same (and by "gay" I mean really MSM, as the entire discussion is about MSM, whereas "gay" is a more of self-assumed identity). Only if one would have substantial evidence to the contrary, one should discard this assumption.

[Martinus]

According to Marti, yes.

Marti thinks you are a sloppy thinker?

Wow, you really have problems with understanding written word, don't you?

[Martinus]

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.

Because I want to mininize the risk while allowing the highest percentage of the populace to donate blood. My premise is that the infection rate of black women is comparable (not materially lower) than the infection rate of white MSM.

So you don't consider the infection rate among black women to warrant a blood donation ban, you should also allow white MSM to donate blood, and you should be really only banning black MSM.

Now, if you also think white MSM should be banned, because their infection rate is considered a risk that would warrant such a ban, then you should also ban black hetero women.

[DGuller]

Errr, are you suggesting that sexual orientation is influenced by race? 

I'm not assuming that it isn't.  And, even if it is, I still don't see what ratio you're using to back into your white gay infected percentage.  I don't know whether you just omitted mentioning it, or whether you guesstimated.

[Admiral Yi]

Using 8% as the black percentage of the population and 8% infection in the whole gay community, I get 6% for non-black gays.

(.08 x .30) + (.92 x X) = .08.  X = .060.

Using the bottom of the range (5%) I get 2.8% for non-blacks.

[ulmont]

Using 8% as the black percentage of the population

Why would you do that?  12.8% per the census:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

[Martinus]

Using 8% as the black percentage of the population and 8% infection in the whole gay community, I get 6% for non-black gays.

(.08 x .30) + (.92 x X) = .08.  X = .060.

Using the bottom of the range (5%) I get 2.8% for non-blacks.

Latino gays also have above-average (about 20% iirc) HIV infection rate.

Then I assume you would have somehow account for the fact that people who know they have HIV are unlikely to come and try to donate blood, unless they are scumbags and liars (but then they can be presumed to lie about their man-on-man sex as well, so the policy is not effective).

[dps]

Then I assume you would have somehow account for the fact that people who know they have HIV are unlikely to come and try to donate blood, unless they are scumbags and liars (but then they can be presumed to lie about their man-on-man sex as well, so the policy is not effective).

The problem isn't (or wasn't) people who know that they're HIV positive and try to give blood anyway, it's people who are HIV positive and don't know it.  That's why they ask male donors about sexual contact with other men instead of just asking if they're HIV positive.

[garbon]

What if you don't know if you've had sex with other men?

[Martinus]

Then I assume you would have somehow account for the fact that people who know they have HIV are unlikely to come and try to donate blood, unless they are scumbags and liars (but then they can be presumed to lie about their man-on-man sex as well, so the policy is not effective).

The problem isn't (or wasn't) people who know that they're HIV positive and try to give blood anyway, it's people who are HIV positive and don't know it.  That's why they ask male donors about sexual contact with other men instead of just asking if they're HIV positive.

Err, that's exactly my point. The percentage of white gay men who have HIV and don't know in the overall gay population is still smaller than the percentage of white gay men who have HIV (whether they know it or not) in the overall gay population. (For the record, the percentage of gay men who have HIV and don't know it, in the overall gay men with HIV population is likely substantially lower than the percentage of straight women who have HIV and don't know it, in the overall straight women with HIV population, but that's another thing).

If we want to decide whether we should allow white MSM to donate blood, we should be trying to establish the former, not the latter. And then, with all these considerations and reservations I am coming up with, suddenly this ceases to become the "high risk group". And this is where the opposition to this ban comes from - that all MSM are labelled a high risk group, which is painting them all with a brush too broad (I mean, more black people have HIV than white people, yet noone is arguing we should ban black people from donating blood, either).