Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    You keep mentioning the 12 months thing, which isn't used for gays. It doesn't say "Have you , within the last 12 montsh had sex with another man" it sais "Have you ever had sex with another man". So do explain, why is it ok to donate after 12 months if you have sex with someone HIV positive, but not ok to donate after 12 months if you have sex with another man? I am not complaining about gays being unable to donate, I am complaining that men who have sex with men are considered more of a risk than peopel who have sex with HIV positive people.

    "What fool let me write that set down?"

    Actually, it is a little worse than what I just described, because not only does the questionare not use the 12 month limit consistently, it also ignores wether protection was used. So having unprotected anal sex with someone you know is HIV positive is currently considered less of a risk than having protected oral sex with another man. Once again, do explain why the questionare could not look as follows:

    "God doesn't have the same mathematical difficulties as we do, he integrates empirically."

    "Have you, within the last 12 months, had sex with someone HIV positive?"
    "Have you, within the last 12 months, had anal sex with another man? (even if you used a condom) "
    "Have you, within the last 12 months, had unprotected oral sex with another man?"

    "It always take longer than expected, even when you take Hofstadter's law into consideration."

    For reference, the current questionare looks more like this (not verbaitim, but essentially the same meaning ):

    "Have you within the last 12 months had sex with someone who is HIV positive?"
    "Are you a man who has had anal or oral sex with another man? (even if you used a condom)?"

    "I'll have you know that I have more than the average number of legs"

    In other words, having unprotected sex with someone you know is HIV positive is fine after 12 months, but having oral sex, with a condom, with another man is apparently not. Do you really think this is consistent?

    Finally, you questioned my ability to comprehend mathematics. All I'm going to respond to that is, don't throw about such insults without thinking about what you say. You may end up making yourself look like a complete fool one day.
    From reading the NBS site in a bit more detail, it appears that homosexual men are in the same position as prostitutes and intravenous drug users. All are high risk groups and are therefore barred from donating blood, regardless of their last date of sexual activity or drug ingestion. There are no double standards, just reasonable ones.


    You can sprinkle your post with mathematical quotes if you like, but it simply makes for a distracting read and does nothing to indicate a sound grasp of statistics.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    When they ask you if you've had sex with another man lie.
    Problem solved.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apagg)
    From reading the NBS site in a bit more detail, it appears that homosexual men are in the same position as prostitutes and intravenous drug users. All are high risk groups and are therefore barred from donating blood, regardless of their last date of sexual activity or drug ingestion. There are no double standards, just reasonable ones.
    So now you are comparing gay men with intravenous drug users. Good job.

    Once again:
    "Have you, within the last 12 months, had sex with someone HIV positive"

    Explain the time limit. Are you trying to tell me you are at greater risk from having sex with a man than if you are having sex with someone HIV positive? Seriously. Your argument only ever makes sense if you assume that is true, because otherwise the above question is a clear example of double standards. Saying there are not double standards doesn't negate the fact that the questionare currently considers you more at risk if you have protected sex with a man than if you have uncportected sex with someone HIV positive. Why couldn't the questionare take the form I suggested before?

    All you have done is keep claiming I don't understand statistics, which is rubbish. There is a major statistical fallacy in the current questionare, namely that it uses the wrong indicator for risk. It isn't wether you are gay or not that puts you at risk, it is wether you are having sex with people likely to be HIV positive. Granted, gay peopel are at significantly higher risk of being HIV positive than straights, but if someone is KNOWN to be HIV positive it is surely a higher risk than someone being at simply higher risk.

    It is fairly obvious what is going on. The NBS wants to ask "Are you gay", but they can't do so simply being gay doesn't make you more likely to be HIV positive if you don't have sex with men. Instead, they have asked an equally silly question, which assumes gay men who only have oral sex with other men are at increased risk, which quite frankly isn't true.

    "But doesn't it reduce the risk?" You may ask. Well, not having blood transfusions would also reduce the risk, that doesn't mean it is sensible. Operations are currently being postponed or even cancelled due to lack of donor blood, so there are problems with having a too paranoid approach as well.

    Once again I ask, if the risk of someone who has had sex with someone HIV positive doanting is acceptable, then why isn't it an acceptable risk if you have had sex with someone who is gay? Even if we use the absolutely worst case estimates of HIV prevalence rates within the gay community, you would still be at orders of magnitude greater risk if you had unprotected sex with someone HIV positive than if you had protected sex with a gay man, yet the NBS appears to actively ignore this.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Surely all blood is tested for HIV before they use it???

    If it isn't then I really don't ever want a blood tranfusion...

    I think this is a ridiculously unfair system.
    I think if they insist on keeping it they should extend it to WOMEN who have had unprotected oral/anal sex with a man as well.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    So now you are comparing gay men with intravenous drug users. Good job.

    Once again:
    "Have you, within the last 12 months, had sex with someone HIV positive"

    Explain the time limit. Are you trying to tell me you are at greater risk from having sex with a man than if you are having sex with someone HIV positive? Seriously. Your argument only ever makes sense if you assume that is true, because otherwise the above question is a clear example of double standards. Saying there are not double standards doesn't negate the fact that the questionare currently considers you more at risk if you have protected sex with a man than if you have uncportected sex with someone HIV positive. Why couldn't the questionare take the form I suggested before?

    All you have done is keep claiming I don't understand statistics, which is rubbish. There is a major statistical fallacy in the current questionare, namely that it uses the wrong indicator for risk. It isn't wether you are gay or not that puts you at risk, it is wether you are having sex with people likely to be HIV positive. Granted, gay peopel are at significantly higher risk of being HIV positive than straights, but if someone is KNOWN to be HIV positive it is surely a higher risk than someone being at simply higher risk.

    It is fairly obvious what is going on. The NBS wants to ask "Are you gay", but they can't do so simply being gay doesn't make you more likely to be HIV positive if you don't have sex with men. Instead, they have asked an equally silly question, which assumes gay men who only have oral sex with other men are at increased risk, which quite frankly isn't true.

    "But doesn't it reduce the risk?" You may ask. Well, not having blood transfusions would also reduce the risk, that doesn't mean it is sensible. Operations are currently being postponed or even cancelled due to lack of donor blood, so there are problems with having a too paranoid approach as well.


    Once again I ask, if the risk of someone who has had sex with someone HIV positive doanting is acceptable, then why isn't it an acceptable risk if you have had sex with someone who is gay? Even if we use the absolutely worst case estimates of HIV prevalence rates within the gay community, you would still be at orders of magnitude greater risk if you had unprotected sex with someone HIV positive than if you had protected sex with a gay man, yet the NBS appears to actively ignore this.
    Well, both homosexuals and intravenous drug users are high risk groups for HIV, so on that grounds a comparison is valid, yes.
    Yes, they want to ask "are you gay", but can't because of the overly sensitive gay community. Homosexuals are a much higher risk group for HIV than heterosexuals, and it makes no sense to introduce an increased level of risk.
    Perhaps the assumption made is that a gay person will be sexually active, i.e. not go 12 months without any sex. I know this seems somewhat unfair to those gay people who have had sex once and then decided to go celibate, but by and large I think it's a fair assumption. Most people, straight or not, don't go 12 months without any sex at all once they've become active.

    The NBS do say on their site that anyone who thinks they may have HIV should not donate. By extension, people who have had sex with an HIV positive person outside of the 12 month period will be accepted only if they know they do not have HIV. I.e. They've had the series of tests required. As this process consists of more than just one blood screening process, it's far more likely (read, certain) that HIV will be caught. However, this is where the 12 month period starts to make sense - it takes some time for the symptoms of HIV infection to appear in the blood, and 12 months is a long enough period to be certain of this.
    I wonder how many shortages arise from gay men protesting outside blood donation centres about their "right" to donate? I know of at least 2 donations affected by this, what a bunch of selfish pricks.

    Zoecb, they do test blood (read the thread please) but the tests for certain diseases, such as HIV, are not 100% effective.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    Surely all blood is tested for HIV before they use it???

    If it isn't then I really don't ever want a blood tranfusion...

    I think this is a ridiculously unfair system.
    I think if they insist on keeping it they should extend it to WOMEN who have had unprotected oral/anal sex with a man as well.

    Well put.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apagg)
    Perhaps the assumption made is that a gay person will be sexually active, i.e. not go 12 months without any sex. I know this seems somewhat unfair to those gay people who have had sex once and then decided to go celibate, but by and large I think it's a fair assumption. Most people, straight or not, don't go 12 months without any sex at all once they've become active.
    Errr, please do explain how someone can end up honestly answer no to "Have you, within the last 12 months had sex with another man?" if they were not going without sex for 12 months due to being sexually active. Do you assume they would lie on the survey? If so then the current policy wouldn't prevent them from donating either, would it?

    Seriously, you accuse me of knowing nothing about statistics, yet you base your argument on this kind of doublethink. The policy is inconsistent.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apagg)
    I wonder how many shortages arise from gay men protesting outside blood donation centres about their "right" to donate? I know of at least 2 donations affected by this, what a bunch of selfish pricks.
    .
    Have you seen the campaign? It consists of leaflets with the title "Please donate because we can't". Yea... we are selffish pricks... sure...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Have you seen the campaign? It consists of leaflets with the title "Please donate because we can't". Yea... we are selffish pricks... sure...
    This campaign consisted of gay men picketing the donation center because they considered it their right to donate. They stopped anyone else donating, good job guys.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Errr, please do explain how someone can end up honestly answer no to "Have you, within the last 12 months had sex with another man?" if they were not going without sex for 12 months due to being sexually active. Do you assume they would lie on the survey? If so then the current policy wouldn't prevent them from donating either, would it?
    Huh?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see why this thread has gone on for so long. There are vast numbers of homo/bisexual men who simply lie when filling out the form just so they can give blood. The blanket ban on "homosexual bood" probably stems more from a few peoples' apprehensions of "catching gay" than any real statistical proof of infection rate.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apagg)
    Huh?
    You claimed the reason they considered gay men a greater risk than someone who slept with someone HIV positive was because they assumed gay men are sexually active, and hence wouldn't remain cellebate for 12 months. If that was the case a question with a 12 month limit would prevent those gay men from donating just as much as a current question ( if you have ever had sex with another man ) so it cannot explain why the NBS considers men who have had sex with another man a greater risk than people who have had sex with someone HIV positive.


    Furthermore, compare these two questions:
    "Have you had sex during the last 12 months with someone who is, or may be, HIV positive, or a carrier of Hepatitis B or C?"

    "Are you a man who has had oral or anal sex with another man (even if you used a condom)?"

    Why does only the second specify that it applies even if condoms were used? Why does only the second one specify that it applies to oral sex as well? Finally, why does the latter one not include the 12 month period? As I explained above, that people are sexually active doesn't explain it, because that remains true for the first question as well, people who had sex within the last 12 months would still fail the second question, and finally, why is oral sex included in the second question when you are at far higher risk from getting HIV from unprotected vaginal sex with a heterosexual person ( The transmission rate during unprotected vaginal sex is more than an order of magnitude higher than the transmission rates for unprotected oral sex ).

    If you take it to the very extreme, a heterosexual woman who has anal sex with an HIV positive man has 500 times as high a chance to contract HIV as a man who gives unprotected oral sex to a random gay man. How did I arrive on those figures? Well, the transmission rates of HIV for anal sex is 50 in 10 000 cases (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5402a1.htm). For Oral sex the corresponding figure is 1 in 10 000. Assuming up to 10% of gay men are HIV positive (Worst case scenario if less than 1% of males are gay ) this gives 1 in 100 000 for a random gay man.

    These are the WORST estimates as far as gay men are concerned. Note that they assume 10% of gay men are HIV positive, a figure which is derived by counting the number of HIV positive gay men and dividing with the assumed number of gay men in the population. If the latter is 5% (the most commonly quoted figure ) rather than 1%, the chance that a random gay man is HIV positive will be 2% rather than 10%, bumping the previous figure up to 2500. Or, if I were to use the NBS method of quoting figures TWO MILLION PERCENT.

    The policy is inconsistent.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Another fun one.

    "Are you a man who has had oral or anal sex with another man (even if you used a condom)?"

    "Have you had sex during the last 12 months with a man who has had oral or anal sex with another man?"

    Suposedly men who have protected sex with men are at greater risk of getting infected than women who have unprotected sex with the same men...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apagg)
    This campaign consisted of gay men picketing the donation center because they considered it their right to donate. They stopped anyone else donating, good job guys.
    If they weren't banned then it wouldn't have happened.
    And if blood donations are as low as people keep saying then they probably stopped all of three people donating.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Another fun one.

    "Are you a man who has had oral or anal sex with another man (even if you used a condom)?"

    "Have you had sex during the last 12 months with a man who has had oral or anal sex with another man?"

    Suposedly men who have protected sex with men are at greater risk of getting infected than women who have unprotected sex with the same men...
    It doesn't say the heterosexual encounter was unprotected...

    Which is hilarious, because that second condition actually excludes me from donating blood for a number of months. Lol. Even though I've never had unprotected sex in my life. How ludicrous this system is.
    I'm partially glad not to be allowed to contribute to it.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    If it's not 100% effective testing then that's just a risk that we as the human race have no choice but to take... it's the most accurate we can get it and people need blood transfusions.

    However blood tests don't descriminate based on sexual orientation. If they're almost 100% accurate for straight people, they will be for gay people too.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Absolutely not
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Milli)
    Absolutely not
    Is that in response to the thread title? Perhaps you would like to clarify?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Look I just dont want to catch gay or black or whatever ok
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RichardJ)
    Look I just dont want to catch gay or black or whatever ok
    Is this a joke?
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.