|
|
Post by Passerby on Jul 21, 2011 9:25:12 GMT -5
If money were a concern at all it would be a trivial feat to levy fines against anyone whose blood comes up as unusable, especially if they can be accused of attempting to donate diseased blood knowingly and sued for damages. They'd be cash cows rather than lost time and supplies.
I'm thinking this is the same thing as when they originally stored the blood from black donors seperately from whites. Dumb, scared, easily swayed sheep think they can 'catch' black or gay like an unscreenable disease.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 21, 2011 10:18:49 GMT -5
Okay, again for the record, I think the ban on homosexual men is stupid. But, I do want to point something out, it takes time before a HIV test can actually detect it. The tests for it look at how many viruses are in the blood stream, if the number is too low, then the test will give a false negative. Now, the initial test performed is designed to give false positives instead, meaning it is hypersensitive (if you have a positive there is a second test that does the opposite to try and remove the false positives). But, even with the test being very sensitive it still has limits, it can take up to 6 months after infection for any test to detect the presence of HIV. This little factoid is why I would prefer the male-male sex restriction be changed to those who have had unprotected sex in the past year (or 9 months or whatever) be ineligible to donate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Jul 21, 2011 12:05:27 GMT -5
This little factoid is why I would prefer the male-male sex restriction be changed to those who have had unprotected sex in the past year (or 9 months or whatever) be ineligible to donate. While that's a much better restriction, I imagine it would knock out a lot of married couples, people in long term committed relationships, etc. I.E. people at a point in their life where they're comfortable relying on only one form of birth control. Example: My ex's step-dad would be eliminated on that standard because he's married and had a vasectomy so he therefore has no reason to use a condom. |
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Jul 21, 2011 12:09:33 GMT -5
Then what about checking off on having had unprotected sex, and their blood's looked at a little closer? I'd suggest having unprotected sex with two or more partners during that year making one ineligible, but that wouldn't work for certain relationships.  |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 21, 2011 13:05:19 GMT -5
Then what about checking off on having had unprotected sex, and their blood's looked at a little closer? I'd suggest having unprotected sex with two or more partners during that year making one ineligible, but that wouldn't work for certain relationships. Just check off "yes" or "no" on "are you a whore?" Because that's pretty much our outlook.  |
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Jul 21, 2011 13:23:10 GMT -5
Then what about checking off on having had unprotected sex, and their blood's looked at a little closer? I'd suggest having unprotected sex with two or more partners during that year making one ineligible, but that wouldn't work for certain relationships. Just check off "yes" or "no" on "are you a whore?" Because that's pretty much our outlook. Basically, although sometimes I think I'm a virgin whore. <.< |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 21, 2011 14:23:12 GMT -5
This little factoid is why I would prefer the male-male sex restriction be changed to those who have had unprotected sex in the past year (or 9 months or whatever) be ineligible to donate. While that's a much better restriction, I imagine it would knock out a lot of married couples, people in long term committed relationships, etc. I.E. people at a point in their life where they're comfortable relying on only one form of birth control. Example: My ex's step-dad would be eliminated on that standard because he's married and had a vasectomy so he therefore has no reason to use a condom. This is true, unfortunately even within a committed relationship there is a non-insignificant chance of extramarital sex. This doesn't mean your partner is cheating on you or anything like that, it just means that within the general population the risk is there. I could support an exemption for committed relationships, however. Then what about checking off on having had unprotected sex, and their blood's looked at a little closer? I'd suggest having unprotected sex with two or more partners during that year making one ineligible, but that wouldn't work for certain relationships. It can't be examined any closer, the test is what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 21, 2011 15:05:56 GMT -5
Okay, again for the record, I think the ban on homosexual men is stupid. But, I do want to point something out, it takes time before a HIV test can actually detect it. The tests for it look at how many viruses are in the blood stream, if the number is too low, then the test will give a false negative. Now, the initial test performed is designed to give false positives instead, meaning it is hypersensitive (if you have a positive there is a second test that does the opposite to try and remove the false positives). But, even with the test being very sensitive it still has limits, it can take up to 6 months after infection for any test to detect the presence of HIV. This little factoid is why I would prefer the male-male sex restriction be changed to those who have had unprotected sex in the past year (or 9 months or whatever) be ineligible to donate. That being said, you can tell they're not serious by the way they don't reject blacks on the same grounds. Blacks comprise what, 40% of the infected/dead, and while one of the major risk factors is gay sex, black women are in the same ballpark in terms of risk. So you can't even filter it out based on "teh ghey." And that's JUST HIV/AIDS. Not really aimed at you, Vene. I get what you're saying. In the same sense I'm not advocating blacks should be barred full stp, I understand you're not advocating the current policy as-is. Basically, although sometimes I think I'm a virgin whore. <.< Must...Resist...Urge...To...Offer...To...Fix...Half...Of...That.... Which half, I'll leave to the imagination. Besides, WANTING it doesn't make you a whore. It just makes you a liar because you have girl parts and girls have no libido. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 21, 2011 15:46:32 GMT -5
I was pointing out the latency for the test to point out that there are still issues with it and simply testing everything can potentially let a lot of pathogens through.
|
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Jul 21, 2011 17:27:15 GMT -5
Then what about checking off on having had unprotected sex, and their blood's looked at a little closer? I'd suggest having unprotected sex with two or more partners during that year making one ineligible, but that wouldn't work for certain relationships. It can't be examined any closer, the test is what it is. So...they test all the blood anyway, is what you're saying? Then what's the bloody problem? *reads your second post* Oh, okay...wait, what? If they test it all anyway, then how is testing it again at a later date NOT looking it it more closely? Amaranth: I have girl parts? *checks zir pants* WTF happened to my penis?! |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 21, 2011 17:31:15 GMT -5
Amaranth: I have girl parts? *checks zir pants* WTF happened to my penis?! It's actually quite a funny story, but the short version is it's sitting on my dresser. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 21, 2011 17:33:21 GMT -5
It can't be examined any closer, the test is what it is. So...they test all the blood anyway, is what you're saying? Then what's the bloody problem? *reads your second post* Oh, okay...wait, what? If they test it all anyway, then how is testing it again at a later date NOT looking it it more closely? Amaranth: I have girl parts? *checks zir pants* WTF happened to my penis?! Okay, I will try to explain this again. The first regiment of testing is the only set of testing that most sample receive. It is purposely designed so that false positives are more likely. Only the positives from this group get tested again, which is done immediately, this time with a test that is more likely to grant false negatives. If the first test gave a negative, the second test will do so as well. I'm more concerned about the window where somebody could become infected by HIV, but there is no test that can detect it. And leaving it in storage for 6 months really is not an option. As a rule, that blood was needed yesterday and I don't think erythrocytes even live that long. |
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Jul 21, 2011 17:38:49 GMT -5
So...they test all the blood anyway, is what you're saying? Then what's the bloody problem? *reads your second post* Oh, okay...wait, what? If they test it all anyway, then how is testing it again at a later date NOT looking it it more closely? Amaranth: I have girl parts? *checks zir pants* WTF happened to my penis?! Okay, I will try to explain this again. The first regiment of testing is the only set of testing that most sample receive. It is purposely designed so that false positives are more likely. Only the positives from this group get tested again, which is done immediately, this time with a test that is more likely to grant false negatives. If the first test gave a negative, the second test will do so as well. I'm more concerned about the window where somebody could become infected by HIV, but there is no test that can detect it. And leaving it in storage for 6 months really is not an option. As a rule, that blood was needed yesterday and I don't think erythrocytes even live that long. Ohhh, okay, thank you. I really didn't realize it took so long for HIV/AIDS to show up. <.<; You'd think I'd know that, pft... Amaranth: ...that's not mine. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 21, 2011 17:39:50 GMT -5
Ohhh, okay, thank you. I really didn't realize it took so long for HIV/AIDS to show up. <.<; You'd think I'd know that, pft... What with your copious sexual activity? |
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Jul 21, 2011 17:42:13 GMT -5
Ohhh, okay, thank you. I really didn't realize it took so long for HIV/AIDS to show up. <.<; You'd think I'd know that, pft... What with your copious sexual activity? No, what with all the blood I've been... Ahhh, nice try! You won't get ME to confess! |
|
