The gay rights community is wrong about blood donations (again)

[SoyLeche]

No, the question is "Are you at enough of a risk for me to exclude you without narrowing down my options too much?"

Yes - that is EXACTLY the question. The FDA has concluded that MSM are at enough risk to exclude without narrowning down the options too much.

Whether you like it or not, MSM have a higher risk than non-MSM. Even the non-receiving MSM. That risk is above the FDAs threshold.

 

[Magic Man]

Yes - that is EXACTLY the question. The FDA has concluded that MSM are at enough risk to exclude without narrowning down the options too much.

Whether you like it or not, MSM have a higher risk than non-MSM. Even the non-receiving MSM. That risk is above the FDAs threshold.

I should have stuck with it when I gave up before.

 

[SoyLeche]

I should have stuck with it when I gave up before.

Yeah - you probably should have.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

No, it wouldn't. Instead of asking "Have you ever had sex with a man?", you ask "Have you ever received anal intercourse from a man?", for instance.

So, you're saying, MSM who have not ever received anal intercourse from a man should not be deferred from donating blood? Yes or no?

 

[Commoner]

It's not. It was an example. I wouldn't advocate that particular question, just questions that get to the heart of the matter, rather than superficial ones like "Have you ever had sex with a man?".

Edit: It's like trying to find out which potential mate will die young on you, and asking them whether or not the drive a car. Anyone who drives a car is at risk of being killed in a crash. The relevant questions would be about how you drive the car. If you drive a normal speed, don't smoke, eat or do anything else out of the ordinary while driving, and you obey all traffic laws, you're at significantly less risk than just someone who drives a car.

So, basically, the question should be - have you ever had a man's penis inside your butt? Plus, of course, length, girth, dinamics of movement, duration...

That's no good...

EDIT: Others have already addressed your analogy - but I'll do it anyway. Yes, if you're a bad driver - you pay a higher premium - that's what the "significantly higher risk" is all about, I agree. And guess what - new drivers are in that category as well - and nobody asks them how they drive. Nobody asks them, if they obey traffic laws. It is simply not applicable to differentiate between the new, potentially good drivers and new, potentially bad drivers...

 

[Mr Spinkles]

So, basically, the question should be - have you ever had a man's penis inside your butt? Plus, of course, length, girth, dinamics of movement, duration...

How much lubricant you used ... etc. It would be unfair to defer people who use plenty of lubricant and only receive small, slow-moving penises.

 

[Commoner]

How much lubricant you used ... etc. It would be unfair to defer people who use plenty of lubricant and only receive small, slow-moving penises.

I knew I forgot something!

 

[SoyLeche]

I should have stuck with it when I gave up before.

Tell you what. You tell me which numbers I have wrong in this table and then we can discuss - hopefully free from the emotional aspect of this.

Population:  1,000,000
Sex            Orientation  Activity
Male     50%   Het  95%     N-A:  Never had Anal
Female 50%     Hom  5%      Top Only:  Only ever given anal
                            Other:  Have received anal (I did this at work, I had to be somewhat careful about my labels) 
 
                             % of
                             (Sex/Orient)   # of            Risk       HIV
Sex      Orient   Activity   Pop            People        of HIV       Cases
Male     Het      No-A        100%          475,000      0.30%      1,425.00 
Male     Het      Top Only      0%                0      0.00%          0.00   
Male     Het      Other         0%                0      0.00%          0.00   
Male     Hom      No-A          5%            1,250      2.00%         25.00 
Male     Hom      Top Only     10%            2,500      3.00%         75.00 
Male     Hom      Other        85%           21,250      5.00%      1,062.50 
Female   Het      No-A         60%          285,000      0.30%        855.00 
Female   Het      Top Only      0%                0      0.00%          0.00   
Female   Het      Other        40%          190,000      0.75%      1,425.00 
Female   Hom      No-A        100%           25,000      0.10%         25.00 
Female   Hom      Top Only      0%                0      0.00%          0.00   
Female   Hom      Other         0%                0      0.00%          0.00

If my assumptions are close to being right, then we have the following:

1,000,000 people, 4,892.50 HIV cases, so an infection rate of 0.49%

The highest risk group are Male-Hom-Other, so we remove them and see what happens

We remove 21,250 people and get rid of 1,062.5 HIV cases, so each HIV case we got rid of cost us 20 potential blood donors. I think we can all agree that this is a good trade off.

The next highest is Male-Hom-Top Only, so we remove and see what happens.

We remove 2,500 people and get rid of 75 HIV cases, so each HIV case we get rid of costs us 33.33 potential donors. I think this is a decent trade off. You may disagree.

The next highest is Male-Hom-No-A. We remove

That is 1,250 people and 25 HIV cases, so 50 donors per HIV case reduced. Again, could be argued that this reduction is worth it.


The next highest is Female-Het-Other.

That is 190,000 people and 1,425 cases, for 133.33 donors per case reduced. Starting to get pretty expensive.

Anyway, suggest some changes you would like to see to the assumptions, then we can discuss some actual (although made up) numbers. Maybe that will help.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I appreciate the effort SoyLeche, but if he won't discuss real numbers why would he discuss made-up ones? Good luck to you, though.

 

[SoyLeche]

I appreciate the effort SoyLeche, but if he won't discuss real numbers why would he discuss made-up ones? Good luck to you, though.

I'd like to get better numbers into my admitedly simplistic analysis (I already know that I spaced entirely that hetero men can still be "top only"...), but I'm having trouble finding data on risks split up like this.

Anyone have a good source to look to?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

There are people who get paid to do this kind of research. If anyone is interested, I cited all these studies before:

The risks and benefits of accepting men who have had sex with men as blood donors

Estimating the risk of blood donation associated with HIV risk behaviours

Quantitative estimate of the risks and benefits of possible alternative blood donor deferral strategies for men who have had sex with men

Evaluation of the de-selection of men who have had sex with men from blood donation in England

[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Trends in Incidence and Prevalence of Major Transfusion-Transmissible Viral Infections in US Blood Donors, 1991 to 1996 [/FONT]

 

[Magic Man]

I appreciate the effort SoyLeche, but if he won't discuss real numbers why would he discuss made-up ones? Good luck to you, though.

Actually, the better question is why I'd continue to waste my time discussing anything on here with some people who either refuse to or just fail to understand what I'm saying.

 

[Commoner]

Actually, the better question is why I'd continue to waste my time discussing anything on here with some people who either refuse to or just fail to understand what I'm saying.

That's such a cop-out...

 

[SoyLeche]

Actually, the better question is why I'd continue to waste my time discussing anything on here with some people who either refuse to or just fail to understand what I'm saying.

I'm a number person. Let me know where I am wrong in my analysis (I know my actual %s are not accurate - please tell me what you think they should be).

I'm trying to understand your position, and I think I do understand it fairly well. I just think that it is wrong.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Actually, the better question is why I'd continue to waste my time discussing anything on here with some people who either refuse to or just fail to understand what I'm saying.

Speaking of wasting time, let me know when you're ready to answer the simple, direct questions I put to you in posts #304, 272, and 182.

I'll throw the dice and ask one more question: Have you read any of the studies I've cited which address the MSM policy issue? Yes or no?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

A good BBC documentary on the subject: Gay Blood Donations, April 2011

 

[djwj80]

Basically what they are saying is that they aren't efficient enough to properly test all the blood effectively, so they are just banning a group of people that they feel they might have to screen more carefully? I don't really see how this has as much to do with the source of the blood as it does with the fact that they haven't been properly testing it? I understand they feel it will help limit the amount of infected blood they get, but they can still get infected blood from heterosexuals. Are they testing that blood properly?

 

[Gunfingers]

Basically what they are saying is that they aren't efficient enough to properly test all the blood effectively, so they are just banning a group of people that they feel they might have to screen more carefully? I don't really see how this has as much to do with the source of the blood as it does with the fact that they haven't been properly testing it? I understand they feel it will help limit the amount of infected blood they get, but they can still get infected blood from heterosexuals. Are they testing that blood properly?

*sigh*
For the fourth or fifth time this thread, all blood is tested as thoroughly as we are technologically capable. However, due to limitations in the technology the tests are not 100% accurate. As a result some infected blood does get through screening.
Thus it becomes important to mitigate the amount of infected blood that is accepted at all, and groups that are high risk for HIV are deferred from donating.
The highest risk groups are men who have had sex with men and IV drug users. One study I read estimated that allowing MSM to donate blood would quintuple the amount of infected blood that reaches patients*. As a result these groups are permanently deferred. Other high-risk groups that are temporarily deferred include rape survivors, women who have had sex with MSM, and people who have gotten tattoos.


*I'm not going to look for it again, but it's linked somewhere in this thread.