Like, have we as a country gotten less dumb about rejecting blood donors due to having a case of the gay?
very slightly. now they ask if you've had gay sex recently rather than ever.
facepalm.jpg
Its dumb as we should just be running general screens on all the blood.
But the logic is not just homophobic. MSM still have the highest rate of new HIV infections in the US.
And it seems mostly among younger MSM now. Those who grew up during the bad years of HIV tend to still have the "wrap it up always" mentality still beat into them.
I agree the logic is not just homophobic.
But the end result is.
When we could just do smaller batches and run batch screenings on everything.
I thought they did screen everything?
That's why they take those extra vials.
oh wait, yeah
The American Red Cross performs laboratory tests for multiple infectious disease markers on every unit of donated blood. Tests are upgraded or replaced with more sensitive technologies as these become available. These tests include:
Chagas disease (T. cruzi)
Hepatitis B virus (HBV)
Hepatitis C virus (HCV 3.0)
Human Immunodeficiency viruses, Types 1 and 2 (HIV 1,2)
Human T-Lymphotropic virus (HTLV-I/II)
Syphilis (Treponema pallidum)
West Nile virus (WNV)
So why the hell do we not let gay folks with active sex lives donate?
The idea is that HTLV and HIV spread more quickly depending on how risky the sex is (unprotected anal in this case). But that same logic should apply to couples who engage in anal sex regardless of orientation.
But I think the assumption is that it's not as frequent in non-gay couples, and thus a rounding error?
It's a policy that is a result of blood transfusions in the 80s where a whole bunch of people got HIV from infected blood before they figured out what was going on, and it was mostly a good idea, if not a kneejerk reaction.
I suspect the rule is still in place to reduce testing costs.
I mean, all they care about is HIV prevalence in the population, I think? Anyway, anal sex with men is riskier because MSM are more likely to have HIV to begin with, and also I suspect the fact that MSM can have bidirectional anal is relevant.
+2
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
Even as a white dude I feel betrayed by this country. I liked to believe most of the folks in it were decent human beings.
Well, if by this you mean you thought most people wouldn't vote for Trump, the good news is that most people didn't!
Clinton's going to wind up with like 3 million more votes.
So that's some cold comfort: we expressly did not want this, but it didn't matter. At least it should make it a bit easier to make common cause against the inevitable tide of bullshit.
Didn't another elector say they weren't going to vote for Trump from texas? The first one resigned. Not that it matters, we'd need like 37 of em and everyone shouts doom and gloom anytime the idea gets brought up. "But if the electors choose against the people" well except they'd be choosing WITH the people based on the Popular Vote's staggering difference.
If we elected Hitler through just a few states should the EC not veto that? Isn't that the whole point?
It doesn't matter because it isn't going to happen but I've been shocked at how many people seem to think that would be some sort of injustice.
But then again I was confident Clinton had this in the bag and that I would have a snow day today but here I am at work so what do I know
It would be the death of the EC. Which isn't bad. It would lead to what is seen as an illegitimate presidency by a lot of the US even those that voted for Clinton because it is overriding the system. The best case is Clinton survives 2 years of permanent investigations and road blocking. Reduces turn out more in the long run. Probably makes 2018's local elections worse for dems.
In the best case it is slightly bad to no difference for 2 years.
But hey we live in the darkest timeline. If anything would happen it is something truly heinous like violence or a civil war.
I mean we just spent 8 years with a lot of the US seeing Obama as an illegitimate Kenyan Muslim and we're still here so
I thought it was a small chunk of vocal people but I guess I was wrong with that one!
I'll take slightly bad over "Abolish the EPA and ruin Education"
There is a difference of a small chunk believing a conspiracy theory and the election as seen by the country being overturned by a small number of unelected "electors" who most of the country do not even understand beyond a number they see on the news during a presidential election.
But why should I give a shit what people who don't understand how the country works think?
Ignorance is not a virtue and if they weren't assed to pay attention when it was explained to them how this works, why should I respect their opinion in the slightest?
And I think we'd be surprised at how big that "small chunk" of Muslim Kenyan Obama people is.
welcome to the exquisite pain of democracy
where every moron has just as much say as you and it's still the only viable system
Abdhyius on
+2
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
I have heard that anal has become much more common recently, partially because of porn
Like, have we as a country gotten less dumb about rejecting blood donors due to having a case of the gay?
very slightly. now they ask if you've had gay sex recently rather than ever.
facepalm.jpg
Its dumb as we should just be running general screens on all the blood.
But the logic is not just homophobic. MSM still have the highest rate of new HIV infections in the US.
And it seems mostly among younger MSM now. Those who grew up during the bad years of HIV tend to still have the "wrap it up always" mentality still beat into them.
I agree the logic is not just homophobic.
But the end result is.
When we could just do smaller batches and run batch screenings on everything.
I thought they did screen everything?
That's why they take those extra vials.
oh wait, yeah
The American Red Cross performs laboratory tests for multiple infectious disease markers on every unit of donated blood. Tests are upgraded or replaced with more sensitive technologies as these become available. These tests include:
Chagas disease (T. cruzi)
Hepatitis B virus (HBV)
Hepatitis C virus (HCV 3.0)
Human Immunodeficiency viruses, Types 1 and 2 (HIV 1,2)
Human T-Lymphotropic virus (HTLV-I/II)
Syphilis (Treponema pallidum)
West Nile virus (WNV)
So why the hell do we not let gay folks with active sex lives donate?
The idea is that HTLV and HIV spread more quickly depending on how risky the sex is (unprotected anal in this case). But that same logic should apply to couples who engage in anal sex regardless of orientation.
But I think the assumption is that it's not as frequent in non-gay couples, and thus a rounding error?
It's a policy that is a result of blood transfusions in the 80s where a whole bunch of people got HIV from infected blood before they figured out what was going on, and it was mostly a good idea, if not a kneejerk reaction.
I suspect the rule is still in place to reduce testing costs.
I mean, all they care about is HIV prevalence in the population, I think? Anyway, anal sex with men is riskier because MSM are more likely to have HIV to begin with, and also I suspect the fact that MSM can have bidirectional anal is relevant.
Hep C as well.
But medicine and stuff like this is a numbers game. Though at this point they might want to reorient and double check their numbers. But sadly MSM populations have highest incidence rate of HIV in the US. Especially in places like NYC. Though I think DC the African American population edges it out slightly.
Of course though say we use this thought process and expand it, you will be banning huge chunks of the African American population in some major cities in the South because they have rates equal to some parts of sub-Saharan Africa.
0
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
Holocaust Deni"er"
are YOU on the beer list?
0
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
Posts
I mean, all they care about is HIV prevalence in the population, I think? Anyway, anal sex with men is riskier because MSM are more likely to have HIV to begin with, and also I suspect the fact that MSM can have bidirectional anal is relevant.
it's the evil coming out of you
pornograph"er"
This is a genuinely bad guideline for costumes!
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Caffeine will solve many vascular headaches
sarah got the verbal offer yesterday and she's p excite
I'm less excite but I think it's the right decision for us
so she has a few questions still, and then I guess we'll say 'yes'
sounds like start date could be as early as feb 1
lel moving across the country again in 6 weeks
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Sex worker
Andy Samberg..er..
Yeah my metrics are way off, no question. For a while there I was convinced I was permanently stuck on east coast time.
welcome to the exquisite pain of democracy
where every moron has just as much say as you and it's still the only viable system
But also I am sort of curious as to why?
Like butts were always there
I dunno
Hep C as well.
But medicine and stuff like this is a numbers game. Though at this point they might want to reorient and double check their numbers. But sadly MSM populations have highest incidence rate of HIV in the US. Especially in places like NYC. Though I think DC the African American population edges it out slightly.
Of course though say we use this thought process and expand it, you will be banning huge chunks of the African American population in some major cities in the South because they have rates equal to some parts of sub-Saharan Africa.