South Africa Aids

adonis

So,
I heard on the news today that south africa is stopping any man that has had sex with another man, in the past five years, from donating blood due to a higher possibility of passing on HIV
I dont think thats really fair is it...considering most HIV transmissions are by heterosexuals...
any opinions on this?
do they not screen blood that has been donated?

RuggieBear

erm...don't they do that here too

http://www.ibts.ie/generic.cfm?mID=2&sID=79

county

condoms and lots of them and of course education is the only way forward

N_Raid

RuggieBear wrote:

erm...don't they do that here too

http://www.ibts.ie/generic.cfm?mID=2&sID=79

Yeah Except over here if you're a man who's had oral or anal sex with another man you can NEVER give blood. Fukin ridiculous imo

Binomate

# You have received a blood transfusion (other than an autologous transfusion) in the Republic of Ireland on or after the 1st January 1980
# You received a blood transfusion (other than an autologous transfusion) outside the Republic of Ireland at anytime
# You have spent 1 year or more, in total, in the UK in the years 1980 to 1996
# You are a male who has ever had anal or oral sex with another male, even if a condom or other form of protection was used
# You have ever used a needle to take unprescribed drugs, this includes body building drugs
# You or your partner is HIV positive
# You have had jaundice of uncertain cause after the age of 13 years
# You have had hepatitis B or C

I'd call that keeping it safe. I wouldn't want to recieve blood from a gay man who, unless he has never had any form of sexual contact with another man. There is no point in risking it.
Freely available testing is another way forward in South Africa, along with the condoms and education of course.

RuggieBear

Binomate wrote:

I'd call that keeping it safe. I wouldn't want to recieve blood from a gay man who, unless he has never had any form of sexual contact with another man. There is no point in risking it.

What's the difference between a gay man who has oral sex/anal sex and a straight man who has oral/anal sex? Pray tell...?

Karl Hungus

Binomate wrote:

I'd call that keeping it safe. I wouldn't want to recieve blood from a gay man who, unless he has never had any form of sexual contact with another man. There is no point in risking it.

I wouldn't either. Imagine that? You might catch gay from him!

Binomate

RuggieBear wrote:

What's the difference between a gay man who has oral sex/anal sex and a straight man who has oral/anal sex? Pray tell...?

I wouldn't feel safe taking blood from a straight man who has taken it up the bum or sucked another guy off either.

N_Raid

RuggieBear wrote:

What's the difference between a gay man who has oral sex/anal sex and a straight man who has oral/anal sex? Pray tell...?

Especially since according to this study done in 1994, (I know it was 2 years ago but it was the latest I could find), by the national disease surveillance centre, in the 1st and 2nd quarter of 1993, of 207 newly identified cases of AIDS, 106 were female and 101 were male, 110 were heterosexual and 67 were homosexual men. From the looks of that homosexual men are in the minority. Why not ban heterosexual women since it seems to be more prevalent that group?

What about the statistic that out of 207,102 were people who were people who were born in sub-Saharan Africa and 64 were born in Ireland? Does that mean that black people should be banned cos they MIGHT be from sub-Saharan Africa, and since more of the cases came from that region they'll have a higher chance having AIDS? Oh no cos THAT would be discrimination.

(Edit: sorry i forgot the link):

http://www.ndsc.ie/A-Z/HepatitisHIVAIDSandSTIs/HIVandAIDS/Publications/2003/File,827,en.pdf

Guy:Incognito

Binomate wrote:

I wouldn't feel safe taking blood from a straight man who has taken it up the bum or sucked another guy off either.

What about a straight man whos been with half the women in the country? who in turn have been with a few other men? (holy crap, finish that circle and you may as well be sleeping with yourself )


The one I dont understand is the not being ale to donate if you recieved a transfusion. Unless theres a risk of you dieing from giving blood after a transfusion, whats the problem. Or are they saying the blood they gave you in the first place may not be safe, and that they dont want it back?

RuggieBear

Binomate wrote:

I wouldn't feel safe taking blood from a straight man who has taken it up the bum or sucked another guy off either.

hahaha...:rolleyes:

So basically a girl taking a cock up her arse and a cock in her mouth is much safer than a man taking a cock up his arse and a cock in his mouth.....is the risk not the same?!

You'd still take blood from a woman donor?!

Binomate

N_Raid wrote:

Especially since according to this study done in 1994, (I know it was 2 years ago but it was the latest I could find), by the national disease surveillance centre, in the 1st and 2nd quarter of 1993, of 207 newly identified cases of AIDS, 106 were female and 101 were male, 110 were heterosexual and 67 were homosexual men. From the looks of that homosexual men are in the minority. Why not ban heterosexual women since it seems to be more prevalent that group?

What about the statistic that out of 207,102 were people who were people who were born in sub-Saharan Africa and 64 were born in Ireland? Does that mean that black people should be banned cos they MIGHT be from sub-Saharan Africa, and since more of the cases came from that region they'll have a higher chance having AIDS? Oh no cos THAT would be discrimination.

(Edit: sorry i forgot the link):

http://www.ndsc.ie/A-Z/HepatitisHIVAIDSandSTIs/HIVandAIDS/Publications/2003/File,827,en.pdf

Yes, people born in Sub-Saharan Africa should be banned from giving blood in Ireland.

TheBigLebowski

N_Raid wrote:

Especially since according to this study done in 1994, (I know it was 2 years ago but it was the latest I could find), by the national disease surveillance centre, in the 1st and 2nd quarter of 1993, of 207 newly identified cases of AIDS, 106 were female and 101 were male, 110 were heterosexual and 67 were homosexual men. From the looks of that homosexual men are in the minority. Why not ban heterosexual women since it seems to be more prevalent that group?

Surely then, expressed as a percentage the amount of homosexuals with Aids is much higher as there is only a tiny percentage (possibly 2%) of the population is gay but according to your statistics, 67 out of 207 were homosexual, which is pretty high (approx 30 %).

Binomate

RuggieBear wrote:

hahaha...:rolleyes:

So basically a girl taking a cock up her arse and a cock in her mouth is much safer than a man taking a cock up his arse and a cock in his mouth.....is the risk not the same?!

You'd still take blood from a woman donor?!

Eh, no! I only take blood from the purest of the pure. Only religious (for that little bit of extra goodness) caucasian Irish virgins who have never used drugs of any kind ever before.

RuggieBear

Binomate wrote:

Eh, no! I only take blood from the purest of the pure. Only religious (for that little bit of extra goodness) caucasian Irish virgins who have never used drugs of any kind ever before.

lol...fair enough...can't argue with that kind of logic

Capt'n Midnight

Statistics say that homosexuals have many more partners than hetrosexuals so the chances of them having contact with someone with AIDS is higher. WRT. to sub-saharan africia, they used to ban them on the basis of Malaria, including Irish people who had spent time in a country with Malaria.

All in all it's a quick filtering process rather than discrimination. IMHO they should have another question about one-night stands / total number of partners..

I hope no one is going to suggest that needle sharers are somehow being victimised because some of them may not have caught something yet.

N_Raid

TheBigLebowski wrote:

Surely then, expressed as a percentage the amount of homosexuals with Aids is much higher as there is only a tiny percentage (possibly 2%) of the population is gay but according to your statistics, 67 out of 207 were homosexual, which is pretty high (approx 30 %).

Maybe so, but that's if the figure of 2% is accurate which I don't think there is any way to know. I have heard people claim it to be as high as 10-15% but I don't think there will ever be a true definitive answer to that.

They may be at an elevated risk level (which again is arguable) but what about people of sub-Sarahan African origin? The figure for them is almost 50% (49.25.........) but there is no blanket ban on them. Why single out gay men?

Victor

How many sub-Saharan Africans / sub-Saharan visitors / residents actually give blood.

adonis wrote:

do they not screen blood that has been donated?

They do, but (a) here is a lag between infection and noticeable infection (b) blood has a limited lifespan outside the body and may be used before the full test results come back.

Stekelly wrote:

The one I dont understand is the not being ale to donate if you recieved a transfusion.

Because blood is a high risk product and not only do you have a needle-prick of someone else's blood, you might have had a huge amount of several people's blood.

N_Raid wrote:

Why single out gay men?

They aren't singles out, they are among a number of groups with high risk profiles.

Anyone who has spent more than a year in sub-Saharan Africa is already facing increased checks for AIDS for insurance purposes, expect this to affect other areas in coming years.

AARRRGH

RuggieBear wrote:

What's the difference between a gay man who has oral sex/anal sex and a straight man who has oral/anal sex? Pray tell...?

The difference is gay men are much more likely to get HIV because more gay men have HIV (based on % of males). Also, there is a massive difference between giving and receiving anal...

The problem with the blood giving is that the HIV virus can be in the blood and not detectable. It takes a while for the tests to be able to pick up the anti-bodies from new infections.

I don't see a problem with the "no gays" thing. Yes, it's a little unfair, but it's not anti-gay. It's just a precaution.

BigArnie

adonis wrote:

do they not screen blood that has been donated?

Yes they do. I really don't see what the problem is to be honest.

AARRRGH

BigArnie wrote:

Yes they do. I really don't see what the problem is to be honest.

The problem is this -

Tonight you let a man have anal sex with you. He is HIV+. It is possible you will attract the virus from him (let's assume you do.)

You get tested after 1 week. You are HIV-
You get tested after 2 weeks. You are HIV-
You get tested after 3 weeks. You are HIV-
You get tested after 4 weeks. You are HIV-
You get tested after 5 weeks. You are HIV-
You get tested after 6 weeks. You are HIV-

You donate blood.

You get tested after 7 weeks. You are HIV-
You get tested after 8 weeks. You are HIV-
You get tested after 9 weeks. You are HIV+. There are finally enough anti-bodies in your system for the test to detect the HIV virus.

Opps. You donated blood in week 6.

It is the new infections which HIV tests cannot pick up.

adonis

this would also occur with hetero males.

AARRRGH

adonis wrote:

this would also occur with hetero males.

Yes, but the reality is not that many hetero males have HIV.

Name me ONE you know of (excluding Magic Johnson.)

Just because the newspapers say "it is mostly hetero people who contract HIV" doesn't mean it's true.

They say the same thing about computer viruses!!! :eek:

BigArnie

dublindude wrote:

Yes, but the reality is not that many hetero males have HIV.

Name me ONE you know of (excluding Magic Johnson.)

Just because the newspapers say "it is mostly hetero people who contract HIV" doesn't mean it's true.

What a load of absolute rubbish. Most HIV+ people in Ireland are either drug abusers or heterosexual men and women from sub-Saharan Africa.

AARRRGH

BigArnie wrote:

What a load of absolute rubbish. Most HIV+ people in Ireland are either drug abusers or heterosexual men and women from sub-Saharan Africa.

Drug abusers, yes.

Hetero men and women from sub-saharan Africa. Here's some research you can do. It'll open your eyes. What test (yes, only one test) do they use to test for HIV in Africa? Why do we use a totally different testing method in Europe/US?

Still. Please name me ONE hetero person who is HIV+. Why can no one ever answer this question?

Binomate

BigArnie wrote:

What a load of absolute rubbish. Most HIV+ people in Ireland are either drug abusers or heterosexual men and women from sub-Saharan Africa.

Care to back that up with something?

BigArnie

dublindude wrote:

Hetero men and women from sub-saharan Africa. Here's some research you can do. It'll open your eyes. What test (yes, only one test) do they use to test for HIV in Africa? Why do we use a totally different testing method in Europe/US?

I don't think you understand me. I'm saying that the majority of people in IRELAND who are HIV+ are junkies or FROM sub-Saharan Africa.

dublindude wrote:

Still. Please name me ONE hetero person who is HIV+. Why can no one ever answer this question?

What kind of moronic, childish thing is this to ask to try to validate your point? People generally don't broadcast the fact that they're HIV+. I can't name many people who are HIV+ fullstop; whether they be gay, straight or drug abusers.

dublindude wrote:

Care to back that up with something?

No problem. Slightly out of date but I assume the figures remain pretty much the same today: http://www.irishhealth.com/?level=4&id=4427

AARRRGH

BigArnie wrote:

I don't think you understand me. I'm saying that the majority of people in IRELAND who are HIV+ are junkies or FROM sub-Saharan Africa.

No, I think you misunderstood me. The HIV figures from Africa are very questionable. The UN even said their figures are guestimates. Also, the way they test is totally, totally unreliable.

Yes, of course lots of African people are HIV+, and yes of course lots of herion users are HIV+, but if we are going to use that website you quoted, 72% of hetero HIV+ cases are female. So this would suggest a lot of the male HIV cases are not in fact hetero men, but gay men. And this is why the blood banks are cautious about gay men giving blood.

I'm sure they've thought it through more than we have!

dermot_sheehan

BigArnie wrote:

What a load of absolute rubbish. Most HIV+ people in Ireland are either drug abusers or heterosexual men and women from sub-Saharan Africa.

Who are banned from giving blood also, also banned are prostitutes, the form you fill out is very detailed and long (e.g. have you ever used intravenous drugs without a prescription, were you born in or spent more then a year outside ireland, have you ever paid for sex, have you ever slept with someone who has paid for sex, etc, etc)

Peteee

N_Raid wrote:

of 207 newly identified cases of AIDS, 106 were female and 101 were male, 110 were heterosexual and 67 were homosexual men. From the looks of that homosexual men are in the minority. Why not ban heterosexual women since it seems to be more prevalent that group?

207 new cases

110 heterosexual 67 homosexual

What happened to the other 30?

Homosexual men are in the majority. Say 10% of males are homosexual, but there were 67 homosexual men with AIDS out of 101. Why then does 10% of the population have nearly 3/4 the amount of AIDS discovered. (Although to be fair those stats look a tad dodgy)

I'd say thats a reason for banning homosexuals giving blood (Considering I cant give blood due to having been born in england)

Binomate

BigArnie wrote:

No problem. Slightly out of date but I assume the figures remain pretty much the same today: http://www.irishhealth.com/?level=4&id=4427

[FONT=Verdana,Helvetica,Arial,san-serif]157 people were diagnosed with HIV. 30% (47) were Homosexual. 70% (110) were heterosexual. Let's just say there are 80000 homosexuals in Ireland which is 2% of a population of 4 million people. That means there are 3,920,000 heterosexual people in Ireland. Going by those estimates 1 in every 1702 homosexuals are HIV positive. 1 in every 35,636 hetorosexual people are HIV positive. That's one in every 28,508 men and one in 7,127 women for a single year. As you can see homosexuals are the most likely to carry the disease. That article only says that it's on the rise.
[/FONT]

Victor

N_Raid wrote:

(Edit: sorry i forgot the link): http://www.ndsc.ie/A-Z/HepatitisHIVAIDSandSTIs/HIVandAIDS/Publications/2003/File,827,en.pdf

More up to date stats http://www.hpsc.ie/A-Z/HepatitisHIVAIDSandSTIs/HIVandAIDS/Publications/2005/File,1405,en.pdf

N_Raid wrote:

Especially since according to this study done in 1994, (I know it was 2 years ago but it was the latest I could find), by the national disease surveillance centre, in the 1st and 2nd quarter of 1993,

Do you mean 2003-2004? Or are you using 13 year old statistics? Can I buy you house at its 1993 price please?

of 207 newly identified cases of AIDS, 106 were female and 101 were male, 110 were heterosexual and 67 were homosexual men.

Where do you get 67 from? It isn't in your link?

From the looks of that homosexual men are in the minority. Why not ban heterosexual women since it seems to be more prevalent that group?

Let us say homosexuals make up 10% (a generally accpeted figure, but not necesarily scientific) of the population and half are male. Based on this homosexual men make up about 5% of the or MSM (men who have sex with men) slightly more.

What about the statistic that out of 207,102 were people who were people who were born in sub-Saharan Africa and 64 were born in Ireland? Does that mean that black people should be banned cos they MIGHT be from sub-Saharan Africa, and since more of the cases came from that region they'll have a higher chance having AIDS? Oh no cos THAT would be discrimination.

Not everyone one from sub-Saharan Africa is black, indeed South Africans and other whites will make up a disproportionate amount of migration figures, given they are generally wealthier, better skilled and more capable of relocating to Ireland. Given the size of the sub-Saharan African community in Ireland, those high percentage figures may give rise to concern.

Peteee wrote:

207 new cases 110 heterosexual 67 homosexual What happened to the other 30?

[strike]Maybe they are children?[/strike] The 67 figure appears erroneous, go read the report.

Homosexual men are in the majority. Say 10% of males are homosexual, but there were 67 homosexual men with AIDS out of 101. Why then does 10% of the population have nearly 3/4 the amount of AIDS discovered. (Although to be fair those stats look a tad dodgy)

[strike]67/203=33%[/strike] Can you withdraw your statement? Just how did you come to 3/4? It can be looked at as either 38/(110+38)=26% or 38/207=18%, both figures are substantially higher than our expected 5%.

BigArnie

Binomate wrote:

[FONT=Verdana,Helvetica,Arial,san-serif]157 people were diagnosed with HIV. 30% (47) were Homosexual. 70% (110) were heterosexual. Let's just say there are 80000 homosexuals in Ireland which is 2% of a population of 4 million people. That means there are 3,920,000 heterosexual people in Ireland. Going by those estimates 1 in every 1702 homosexuals are HIV positive. 1 in every 35,636 hetorosexual people are HIV positive. That's one in every 28,508 men and one in 7,127 women for a single year. As you can see homosexuals are the most likely to carry the disease. That article only says that it's on the rise.
[/FONT]

Care to back that up with something?

Binomate

BigArnie wrote:

Care to back that up with something?

I took all of the figures from the link you provided apart from the population of Ireland and made the calculations myself.

Victor

BigArnie wrote:

No problem. Slightly out of date but I assume the figures remain pretty much the same today: http://www.irishhealth.com/?level=4&id=4427

Kindly use original sources, in the context they are given, not defunct articles. At no point is sexual orientation specified other that by analagy to means of transmission.

Binomate wrote:

I took all of the figures from the link you provided apart from the population of Ireland and made the calculations myself.

It says "Of the 110 heterosexual cases" they mean means of transmission, not the actual sexual orinetation of the people.

It is probable that more that 2% of the population is gay.

AARRRGH

The point is, considering what small percentage of the population is gay, a lot more gay people are contracting HIV than non-gay people.

We don't need to argue about a few percentage points.

Binomate

dublindude wrote:

The point is, considering what small percentage of the population is gay, a lot more gay people are contracting HIV than non-gay people.

We don't need to argue about a few percentage points.

My point exactly.

Peteee

Victor wrote:

[strike]67/203=33%[/strike] Can you withdraw your statement? Just how did you come to 3/4? It can be looked at as either 38/(110+38)=26% or 38/207=18%, both figures are substantiall higher than our expected 5%.

101 males

67 are homosexual (Although as you pointed out these are probably wrong, I didnt read the article)

If there are 67/101 of the men are homosexuals, and have aids.

Therefore about 66% of the men in ireland who have AIDS (Or have newly contracted it as the article states...I think) are homosexuals.

The 3/4 statement is erroneous, its more like 2/3. Sorry

Or at least thats the way I read them. Anyway, the real point is that a higher number of homosexual men have aids, per 1000, then heterosexuals

LovelyHurling

Peteee wrote:

101 males
67 are homosexual (Although as you pointed out these are probably wrong, I didnt read the article)

67% of AIDS victims are gay, but you cant be sure of that? You would also have to consider when they contracted the virus (AIDS, not the gay virus:D ) because the time when gay men were more likely to contract aids interlinked with the time when condoms weren't available in ireland and little was known in the west of transmission of HIV.

Is that a reason to blanket ban gay people from giving blood, especially considering the shortage of donors? No, because 67% AIDS victims are gay, but nowhere near 67% of gay men have HIVAIDS.

Im not gay but I cant give blood being from the north:eek: Anyone know why we cant gove blood is it because we've all got the mad cow disease?!!

Peteee

LovelyHurling wrote:

because 67% AIDS victims are gay, but nowhere near 67% of gay men have HIVAIDS.

Im not gay but I cant give blood being from the north:eek: Anyone know why we cant gove blood is it because we've all got the mad cow disease?!!

Thats what I said

I cant give blood either, cos I lived in england, I must have teh mad cow disease!!!1111 omg

Fast_Mover

Peteee wrote:

I must have teh mad cow disease!!!1111 omg

that has answered alot of questions i had about you Peteee..;)

LovelyHurling

Ulster says moo

Victor

Peteee wrote:

101 males 67 are homosexual

Honestly! Where are you getting the number 67 from? It appears in neither the article nor either report linked.

Are you inventing this figure?

Fast_Mover

Victor wrote:

Honestly! Where are you getting the number 67 from?

Peteee has been known to make up things i believe..and he calls himself an honest person:rolleyes: .....:D

sweety4uall

Binomate wrote:

I wouldn't feel safe taking blood from a straight man who has taken it up the bum or sucked another guy off either.

ignorance.

Binomate

sweety4uall wrote:

ignorance.

In the words of Justin Timberlake, cry me a river.

Capt'n Midnight

The real reason why gay people in SA can't give blood is that they have "Bad AIDS". Groups with potential exposure to "Good AIDS" aren't such a high risk. brass eye

LovelyHurling

Victor wrote:

Honestly! Where are you getting the number 67 from? It appears in neither the article nor either report linked.

Are you inventing this figure?

Anyone know what % of HIVAIDS sufferers are gay then? Can lesbians contract the virus? I cant think how tbh, maybe thats just a lack of imagination on my part! but is it all homosexualists or are the ladies clear?

astrofool

LovelyHurling wrote:

Anyone know what % of HIVAIDS sufferers are gay then? Can lesbians contract the virus? I cant think how tbh, maybe thats just a lack of imagination on my part! but is it all homosexualists or are the ladies clear?

It would probably depend on if they were sharing something.

I've thought about this a bit, having lived in England and not being able to give blood over here myself.

The thing about blood banks is that people have to have confidence in them. EVERYBODY has to have confidence in them, no matter how racist or ignorant that person is. The entire reason its there is to save lives, not to fulfill some sort of equality measure. Now, IF the blood bank were to allow homosexuals to donate, then a proportion of ignorant people would refuse to allow themselves to recieve blood from the blood bank, and lives are lost. The same goes for anything that may 'stain' the 'quality' of blood in the system, such as the risk of CJD from people who lived in England (how many people in England a country with 10 times our population contract CJD from donated blood? I haven't heard of one, have you?).

So, as long as there is sufficient amount of donor's who fit into the catagory that is most acceptable to the highest % of people in the country to recieve blood, then they will be able to place arbitrary limits on blood so as to make sure the most possible people use it.

You can bet if there was a real shortage of blood, that the requirements to give blood would open up to a larger % of the population.

At the end of the day, its all about saving lives, regardless of sexual persuasion, or background, or ignorance of people. In the eyes of medicine, everybody is to be allowed equal access to care.

LovelyHurling

astrofool wrote:

Now, IF the blood bank were to allow homosexuals to donate, then a proportion of ignorant people would refuse to allow themselves to recieve blood from the blood bank, and lives are lost.

I dont think that in a life or death situation, anybody would risk death by refusing blood because it might have come from a gay person!

such as the risk of CJD from people who lived in England (how many people in England a country with 10 times our population contract CJD from donated blood? I haven't heard of one, have you?).

Ive never thought about it this way, youre completely right and there is probably way less risk of Northerners or mainland British people having CJD than gay men having AIDS, yet we dont question the former at all.
Really I dont think the bans are anything but well intended, and like astrofool said, if there was a real demand the rules would no doubt be chillaxed

killeoin

This is completely ridiculous, so many people here whining about discrimination... I somehow get the feeling the majority of them have never received a blood transfusion, or at least don't regularly.

Taking someone else's blood into your body is so incredibly risky, if they have HIV, or hepatis C, or whatever you're pretty much fecked. So being over-cautious in DEFINITELY better than not being cautious enough, in my opinion. And so, certain high risk groups aren't allowed to donate...

This isn't a matter of being prejudice, it's being CAREFUL!!!!

Re: Homosexuals...
Of course every single gay man doesn't have HIV... But, a significantly higher percentage of practising homosexuals are HIV+, and as practising homosexuals are a relatively small percentage of our population it makes sense to impose a blanket ban preventing them from donating. This is because if the ban were lifted, there would be a relatively small increase in blood donations, it wouldn't be worth the increased risk.

This is to protect us!!
It may be prejudice but it's CONSIDERED prejudice and it makes sense!!