The problem is that some people are "certain" that they're negative, where "certain" means for them "well I kinda think so but mostly I really really hope I'm negative."
That statement could apply to anybody regardless of sexual orientation or gender.
The problem is that some people are "certain" that they're negative, where "certain" means for them "well I kinda think so but mostly I really really hope I'm negative."
That statement could apply to anybody regardless of sexual orientation or gender.
... but this isn't some unrealistic crap like telling our children to hide under their desks for protection from an atomic bomb
Just as an aside, the duck and cover thing isn't quite as much a joke as it's often made out to be. Yes, if you're directly under the blast you're screwed, but if not the two main things to staying alive are not getting physically injured (ie flying glass from a classroom window, hence the duck and cover) and staying away from fallout (which drops to 1/100th of the original strength after two days).
On topic, "have you taken it up the ass without a rubber" would be a much better indicator than asking about sexuality. However, having volunteered for blood donor clinics many times, I can't say I'm surprised that regulations are overly strict and not entirely logical.
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
I don't know if someone has said this already, but the reason Gay=AIDS thing is around is because Homosexuals use protection far less that hetero's. They do this because they can't get someone pregenant, and that is about 70% of the reason for protection out the window. Sure, while you think about it, you'd say "Isn't it more like 50%?", but in the heat of the moment, they simply think "Oh what the hell, what are the odds?"
Thanks. There isn't like a movement against barebacking or anything like that.:roll:
Plenty of gay communities don't frown upon it or anything...
I guess I should go back to Sodom and start being an inconsiderate man-whore.
I'm not a doctor or any sort of medical professional, so I don't know how much these restrictions protect against contamination. But if they do, thne I see no problem. Public safety is more important than your feelings.
Way to miss the point.
The restrictions we're talking about are both more discriminatory and less accurate than alternative screening criteria that multiple members of this thread have suggested.This is not a zero-sum-game between gay people's feelings and public safety; it's possible to protect both and do it better than we're doing now.
Whole blood is not tested on an individual donor-by-donor basis, though. They test the blood in aggregate batches from multiple donors (separated by type) and if a batch shows up positive the whole batch has to be disposed of.
I'm going to have to point out that this is entirely incorrect. Each whole blood donation is tested individually for each federally required test and any others the blood center chooses to perform, whether you donate to the Red Cross or your local blood center. You are probably thinking of plasma testing, which is done by pooling samples.
I didn't believe you, I tried to look up evidence in my favor, and it turns out you're right.
In my defense though they used to test whole blood in batches until around 2001.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I think it's also the idea that gay men have more sexual partners and are more promiscous, thereby increasing the chance of HIV. Also because gay men have less chance of becoming pregnant, they don't use a condom.
These seem more like '80s attitudes, but may still be true.
Well, if they actually do test samples individually its totally stupid to stop anyone from donating. Stupid to the point of absurdity, which is why I am slightly dubious as to whether this is really the case.
I think it's also the idea that gay men have more sexual partners and are more promiscous, thereby increasing the chance of HIV. Also because gay men have less chance of becoming pregnant, they don't use a condom.
These seem more like '80s attitudes, but may still be true.
Could just switch it to "Have you had unprotected sex?"
That would cover the risk group that they actually want to cover, instead of the stereotype they hope is correct.
Edit: I mean, hell, even if they changed it to "unprotected anal sex", it would at least make more sense and cover heterosexual couples that are also at risk.
Well, if they actually do test samples individually its totally stupid to stop anyone from donating. Stupid to the point of absurdity, which is why I am slightly dubious as to whether this is really the case.
I can assure you, they do test samples individually. I work at a company that produces software for blood banks and plasma centers.
However, you are incorrect. There are two major reasons why they shouldn't let "anyone" donate.
First, testing costs money. Reagents cost money, maintenance on instruments costs money, paying lab technicians costs money, higher volume testing requires more instruments (which are REALLY expensive), etc. Each unit of blood taken in that has to get thrown away is money down the drain from a non-profit organization that doesn't have bucketloads of cash to throw around.
Second, testing these days is good. Very good. But it's not perfect. Every unit of bad blood that gets through the screening process is a unit which could potentially slip through testing, and nobody wants that to happen.
It is probably for the best that common perception is that you have a double digit % chance of transmission with sexual intercourse.
Sure, but I always thought that the main cause of HIV infection (outside of Africa, at least) is random, casual, one-time sex. Which doesn't really makes sense if the per-act chance of infection is so low.
This suggest that a major source of infection is couples who repeatedly have sex, not knowing that one of them is infected.
Not necessarily. If you go out and have one unprotected one-night stand a week, that's a 14% chance you'll contract HIV that year. Or, to make that number much more realistic: find me 1,000 college students that are having 5 unprotected one-night stands each year, and 14 of them will contract HIV.
(Assuming they have sex with someone who's HIV-positive, of course. An actual statistic would have to vary by location, possibly average income, etc.)
Vrtra Theory on
Are you a Software Engineer living in Seattle? HBO is hiring, message me.
(Assuming they have sex with someone who's HIV-positive, of course. An actual statistic would have to vary by location, possibly average income, etc.)
Exactly. So semi-assuming 1M people in the US have HIV out of 300M, less than 0.05 of those students will contract HIV. So that's about 1 out of every 21k slightly promiscuous college students. Of course, we didn't take into account that females are twice as likely to contract HIV from positive males than vice-versa.
EDIT: Also didn't take into account that said college students probably won't be having sex with children or anyone considerably older than themselves. Adult prevalence in the US seems to be 0.6%, rather that the 0.33% my assumption suggests.
The man who figures out how to produce synthetic blood cheaply will be a very rich one..
There are already a number of substitutes for parts of the blood, and blood expanders available, plus blood recycling machines for in-surgery use etc. They're just not as cheap.
The man who figures out how to produce synthetic blood cheaply will be a very rich one..
There are already a number of substitutes for parts of the blood, and blood expanders available, plus blood recycling machines for in-surgery use etc. They're just not as cheap.
The man who figures out how to produce synthetic blood cheaply will be a very rich one..
There are already a number of substitutes for parts of the blood, and blood expanders available, plus blood recycling machines for in-surgery use etc. They're just not as cheap.
Well, they're also not as good.
the best ones can only suffice for a very short time... they're suitable to keep a patient stabilized during an ambulance ride, but you still want real blood as soon as you get to the hospital.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Posts
But that would make it so comfortable!
That statement could apply to anybody regardless of sexual orientation or gender.
Nowhere does he say it couldn't.
Just as an aside, the duck and cover thing isn't quite as much a joke as it's often made out to be. Yes, if you're directly under the blast you're screwed, but if not the two main things to staying alive are not getting physically injured (ie flying glass from a classroom window, hence the duck and cover) and staying away from fallout (which drops to 1/100th of the original strength after two days).
On topic, "have you taken it up the ass without a rubber" would be a much better indicator than asking about sexuality. However, having volunteered for blood donor clinics many times, I can't say I'm surprised that regulations are overly strict and not entirely logical.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Plenty of gay communities don't frown upon it or anything...
I guess I should go back to Sodom and start being an inconsiderate man-whore.
Way to miss the point.
The restrictions we're talking about are both more discriminatory and less accurate than alternative screening criteria that multiple members of this thread have suggested.This is not a zero-sum-game between gay people's feelings and public safety; it's possible to protect both and do it better than we're doing now.
I didn't believe you, I tried to look up evidence in my favor, and it turns out you're right.
In my defense though they used to test whole blood in batches until around 2001.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
These seem more like '80s attitudes, but may still be true.
Could just switch it to "Have you had unprotected sex?"
That would cover the risk group that they actually want to cover, instead of the stereotype they hope is correct.
Edit: I mean, hell, even if they changed it to "unprotected anal sex", it would at least make more sense and cover heterosexual couples that are also at risk.
However, you are incorrect. There are two major reasons why they shouldn't let "anyone" donate.
First, testing costs money. Reagents cost money, maintenance on instruments costs money, paying lab technicians costs money, higher volume testing requires more instruments (which are REALLY expensive), etc. Each unit of blood taken in that has to get thrown away is money down the drain from a non-profit organization that doesn't have bucketloads of cash to throw around.
Second, testing these days is good. Very good. But it's not perfect. Every unit of bad blood that gets through the screening process is a unit which could potentially slip through testing, and nobody wants that to happen.
Not necessarily. If you go out and have one unprotected one-night stand a week, that's a 14% chance you'll contract HIV that year. Or, to make that number much more realistic: find me 1,000 college students that are having 5 unprotected one-night stands each year, and 14 of them will contract HIV.
(Assuming they have sex with someone who's HIV-positive, of course. An actual statistic would have to vary by location, possibly average income, etc.)
Exactly. So semi-assuming 1M people in the US have HIV out of 300M, less than 0.05 of those students will contract HIV. So that's about 1 out of every 21k slightly promiscuous college students. Of course, we didn't take into account that females are twice as likely to contract HIV from positive males than vice-versa.
EDIT: Also didn't take into account that said college students probably won't be having sex with children or anyone considerably older than themselves. Adult prevalence in the US seems to be 0.6%, rather that the 0.33% my assumption suggests.
the best ones can only suffice for a very short time... they're suitable to keep a patient stabilized during an ambulance ride, but you still want real blood as soon as you get to the hospital.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.