Leo Again

Kurtosis

To move away from emotional arguments and bring this back to some facts

Zab wrote: »

• Your statistics are not correct.
• You seem to have failed to realize that the SaBTO review (which is the review you are referring to) recommended changing to a 12 month deferrment, which was duly enacted, because the increased risk was deemed to be insignificant.
• The "500%" figure that you're using is cherry-picked from a 2003 UK study (actually 458%) and was the projected increased risk if the deferment was dropped altogether, not if it was changed to 12 months (estimateed as +66% in that study)
• The SaBTO review cites a later reanalysis accounting for modern testing techniques that estimated risk change associated with a 12 month deferment to be between -29.1%(full compliance) to +9.9%(increased non-compliance in line with prevalence) with an increased risk of +0.5% if compliance remained the same
• To use absolute figures, with the lifetime exclusion that was in place at the time, the study estimated 0.227 infections per million donations making it to the blood supply. With a 12 month deferment this was changed to 0.161 for full compliance, 0.228 for same compliance, and 0.249 for increased non-compliance in line with prevalence.
• Most of the above is dealt with in section 9 of the review, starting on page 45, if you're interested.
• You have also inferred that having a 12 month deferrment would increase the non-compliance of MSM individuals, but you have provided no valid basis for this whatsoever. In fact it would be easier to argue that the opposite is true, and individual compliance would increase due to added faith in the given rationale.

From Table 7 in the above report, with the current ban the rate of HIV infected donations released into the blood supply is 0.227 per million donations.

For the scenario of a 12 month deferral period and taking the least conservative assumption of an increase in incidence/non-compliance in line with prevalence, this results in an increase by 9.9% to 0.249 per million donation, or an absolute increase of 0.022 per million.

This equates to approximately one extra case of HIV infected blood per 45 million donations. In the context of ~135,000 donations here per year, I would consider this to be a small risk.

floggg

Flem31 wrote: »

If the trolleys had gone from 600 down to 590 that would also be an improvement. Based on a 10 day average(the INMO don't appear to count at weekends) 319 is still high and needs further work.


Two months ago there was a very disturbing investigative piece about care of vulnerable people in a care home. It showed that despite the investigation teams (HIQA and HSE) it took someone going undercover filming the abuse for it to receive attention.

Since then we are back to the vacuum of silence that usually happens after events like this and I don't recall hearing anything about what steps that will be taken to improve the investigations so that we won't need RTE to tell us what's going wrong. Are there any other examples of this abuse, we don't know, and we don't seem to be in any hurry to find out.

I have a relative who works in one of these facilities and they know in advance when HIQA are calling and know to be on their best behaviour re caring for the vulnerable people. There is one, possibly two inspections a year, and each last a day, and they can do what they like the remaining 363 days a year. Am I suggesting that they are physically abusing people, no I'm not, but abuse comes in very many forms, including not ensuring the people who can't feed themselves receive the nourishment they need.

Now I consider that more of a priority than blood donations from the LGBT community. The minister has already indicated what his preferred decision is and that is a one year delay. So even if he makes that decision today, there will be no blood available from the LGBT community until Feb 2016.

I don't see any outcry from the BTSB re short stocks. As an irregular blood doner myself, I notice that D'Olier Street is not open after 7pm any evening and still doesn't open on Saturdays. In the past I remember giving blood on several occasions at that facility between 7-9pm.
My view on that is they seem to be quite happy with the blood donations they receive at present.

So here's where we are at the moment
8th Dec 2014 Minister says rules under review and report being compiled
10th Jan 2015 RTE announce that report with Minister
18th Jan 2015 Minister says he has to make a decision on this as part of his bigger announcement
25th Jan 2015 Minister's spokesman confirms three options and what the Ministers initial preferred choice is
30th Jan 2015 Minister says he will speak to various interested parties before he makes his decision

For something that wasn't listed as a priority, there seems to be plenty of announcements about it. At this stage, I think he should just hurry the f up and then concentrate on factors affecting people's health in 2015 rather than a pending decision that based on his preferred option, won't affect people's lives until 2016.

I have said before, I don't care about Leo's sexuality. I want a minister who will help improve the general health of all citizens in this country.

You say you dont care about his sexuality, but you are assuming he's expediting this issue because of it. There is no evidence to suggest its getting undue attention.

Also, I don't thibk you understand the proposed 1 year restriction. Its not that they will hold the blood for a year to test.

They will only allow gay or bisexual men who havent had sex with another man within the last year to donate. I imagine once donated, it will enter into the supply once tested.

floggg

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I remember I was doing work experience in a hospital many years ago. I was asked to observe a patient giving Haemochromatosis (too much Iron) blood and told it was going to be destoryed. I objected saying couldnt we give it to someone with sickle cell anemia?. The doctor asked me would I take responsibility for it and what if it was given to my mother. I said I would not because I wasnt qualified and I couldnt predict the full effects.

Since then I learned my lesson and let other people in class jump in and make mistakes. I am very conservative about any "massive" leap forwards in science. Dont ever ask a gay person how they feel about giving blood ask Hep C or AID patient instead, or someone who is about to recieve it. Imagine going to your patients house at 10pm and having to tell them 25 years ago they were infected by a blood transfusion. Then have to say sorry, but we will monitor your health.

Your perspective is obscured. I know about 4 women and one man who have received it and no money would compensate them for their liver. Still no accountability from the government. This could potentially bring down the government.

I think making decisions based on all available medical evidence would be the exact opposite of your example in the first paragrpah.

You seem to be assuming there definitely is no benefit to relaxing the rules, or that the risk is massive.

Why not wait until the report comes out?

Also, if we were to absolutely refuse all risks groups, we would have few donors. There is nobody risk free, but you have to balance the risks with the need to meet the demand for blood.

skooterblue2

floggg wrote: »

I think making decisions based on all available medical evidence would be the exact opposite of your example in the first paragrpah.

You seem to be assuming there definitely is no benefit to relaxing the rules, or that the risk is massive.

Why not wait until the report comes out?

Also, if we were to absolutely refuse all risks groups, we would have few donors. There is nobody risk free, but you have to balance the risks with the need to meet the demand for blood.

I Learned not to jump with both feet first, lets let someone else test the water for 5 years first. I have read the Irish times report and it is very ambigious on the Irish Haemophillia societys part and doesnt commit to one side or other. I never said there was no benefit. I would not like to take a professional risk or a personal risk on it. I would not tell a patient it was a definate thing either. I think it is adding a high risk group to the mix that doesnt necessarily need to be there. I think there should be more money spent in trying to atttract more low risk patients and more celebrity endoresments of the service. I believe there are more than sufficent blood stocks out there just give responsible citizens the incentive to donate.

I would Not support or encourage patients to donate if there were a risk of infection like that. The whole system could collapse very easily. I still know people who feel betrayed after the Hepatitis scandal. The Liberals cry "We can learn", we clearly they didnt and they hushed it up again. No one lost their job, pension or was publicly repremanded.

efb

It wasn't the liberal agenda that caused the Hep C scandal. Again if the report suggests 1 year is ok, then I support that. And we would NOT be the first country to have that policy

skooterblue2

Firstly it wasn't a Hepatitis B it was Hepatitis C.
Nobody is endorsing this strategy. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/leo-varadkar-says-blood-transfusion-ban-not-a-matter-of-equality-1.2085433
No one said it was the Liberals who caused it but It is a liberal Agenda that is driving it. I dont see any doctors out on the front line saying this is a good idea. As far as I am concerned it is only a diversionary tactic to distract from the way the health service is run. I have the same policy to defence as I do to medicine ...... show me someone else doing it first and then I will make my decision.

Remember Leo's first responsibility is to Leo not his former patients. Leo needs to get Leo re-elected.

Timberrrrrrrr

floggg wrote: »

I think making decisions based on all available medical evidence would be the exact opposite of your example in the first paragrpah.

You seem to be assuming there definitely is no benefit to relaxing the rules, or that the risk is massive.

Why not wait until the report comes out?

Also, if we were to absolutely refuse all risks groups, we would have few donors. There is nobody risk free, but you have to balance the risks with the need to meet the demand for blood.

^^^^

This


The only way they will get almost risk free blood is if they restrict donations to confirmed virgins who have never left their home town/city before.

efb

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

^^^^

This


The only way they will get almost risk free blood is if they restrict donations to confirmed virgins who have never left their home town/city before.

And they had no medical conditions

Menas

What gets me about this is you would think think the relaxation of the rules are conferring some sort of benefit on people the way the 'anti gay' lobby go on.

Its not. It is broadening the spectrum of people who can perform a civil duty and help save lives. Its not as if we dont have blood shortages in this country.

Timberrrrrrrr

efb wrote: »

And they had no medical conditions

Had chickenpox when you were 3? Banned from donating

Parents took you on holiday to Africa when you were 8? Banned from donating

You kissed a boy when you were 16 and he then went on to die from sudden adult death syndrome? Ohhhhh sorry can't take the risk, Banned from donating.

efb

Trigger Happy wrote: »

What gets me about this is you would think think the relaxation of the rules are conferring some sort of benefit on people the way the 'anti gay' lobby go on.

Its not. It is broadening the spectrum of people who can perform a civil duty and help save lives. Its not as if we dont have blood shortages in this country.

Some here seem to blame gay people for the tainted blood scandals, and have a very blinkered view view imho.

It was a catastrophic failing on regulation, poor blood supply and buying blood from countries with v light regulation. The fact that no one ever was held responsible in this country is a disgrace.

No-one should ever be paid to give blood.

Things have improved now, re testing and treatment so I can see why the rules need to be reviewed.

Flem31

floggg wrote: »

You say you dont care about his sexuality, but you are assuming he's expediting this issue because of it. There is no evidence to suggest its getting undue attention.

Also, I don't thibk you understand the proposed 1 year restriction. Its not that they will hold the blood for a year to test.

They will only allow gay or bisexual men who havent had sex with another man within the last year to donate. I imagine once donated, it will enter into the supply once tested.

I wish you would stop making up assumptions of me and posting these errors.

If the previous minister had made the same weekly comments about an issue that wont affect anyone for a year, I would have the same problem with that also. Sexuality does not affect this discussion, picking the wrong priorities does.

I never thought for a minute that they would hold onto blood for a year to test. I have a vague memory that blood has only a short shelf life and I would assume that applies whether you are testing it or you are giving it to someone as part of treatment.

I agree that once donated, and tested like other blood, it will be available for use fairly quickly.

I welcome that the Minister has released a statement this morning re legislation on reducing the cost of drugs from pharmaceutical companies.
At last, we seem to have a minister who is announcing something that might have an impact in people's health and wellbeing in 2015 and shock horror it might even be part of the 25 priorities he published 10 days ago.

My issue was never about sexuality, it was always about improving the health system.

fran17

penguin88 wrote: »

All medical practices carry inherent risk which is impossible to eliminate fully. That's the reality of health care.

I agree 100%.However it is and always should be the job of healthcare to reduce these risks to an absolute minimum wherever and however possible and in the interest of 100% of society and not 1.5% - 3% of it.

efb

fran17 wrote: »

I agree 100%.However it is and always should be the job of healthcare to reduce these risks to an absolute minimum wherever and however possible and in the interest of 100% of society and not 1.5% - 3% of it.

this to provide more blood to the 100% not to appease gay men :rolleyes:

fran17

efb wrote: »

this to provide more blood to the 100% not to appease gay men :rolleyes:

Will you please stop assuming what I'm thinking.I honestly began this thread with the topic of the risk involved to the blood stock.There is no way you could not include the fact that within minutes of coming out Leo Varadkar began this debate in this thread.Its the elephant in the room!

efb

fran17 wrote: »

Will you please stop assuming what I'm thinking.I honestly began this thread with the topic of the risk involved to the blood stock.There is no way you could not include the fact that within minutes of coming out Leo Varadkar began this debate in this thread.Its the elephant in the room!

He addressed it as he knew it would be coming up. James Reilly commissioned it, the outcome will be decided in Varadkar's tenure. I'm correcting your inaccurate statements

skooterblue2

efb wrote: »

this to provide more blood to the 100% not to appease gay men :rolleyes:

That is exactly what it is!!!!! How many operations were cancel due to shortages of blood? ..... None.

The real issue is how we should be more encouraging citizens to be more civic minded. Particularily younger people, to donate. (As much as I think Celebrity culture is for the simple minded) I think that a few celebs turning up for a donation and posing for a few selfies wouldnt do any harm.
I think in some States in America they give you a Cinema Ticket and voucher for mineral and popcorn. What are you going to be for the evening anyways?
There should be some sort of civic recognition for citizens.

These are positive and cost effective steps to boost for blood donations. These are real solutions.

efb

skooterblue2 wrote: »

That is exactly what it is!!!!! How many operations were cancel due to shortages of blood? ..... None.

The real issue is how we should be more encouraging citizens to be more civic minded. Particularily younger people, to donate. (As much as I think Celebrity culture is for the simple minded) I think that a few celebs turning up for a donation and posing for a few selfies wouldnt do any harm.
I think in some States in America they give you a Cinema Ticket and voucher for mineral and popcorn. What are you going to be for the evening anyways?
There should be some sort of civic recognition for citizens.

These are positive and cost effective steps to boost for blood donations. These are real solutions.

Really how many times last year did the IBTS issue emergency appeals for donors???

When I was a Donor I used be texted when B- was low

fran17

efb wrote: »

He addressed it as he knew it would be coming up. James Reilly commissioned it, the outcome will be decided in Varadkar's tenure. I'm correcting your inaccurate statements

I don't deal in inaccuracies,just the facts.James Reilly may have commissioned a study however his thoughts were quite clear on the matter while in government.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/06/20/james-reillys-letter-about-gay-blood-donors/

He also said that HIV infection rates in msm has been rising since 2004.

fran17

efb wrote: »

Really how many times last year did the IBTS issue emergency appeals for donors???

When I was a Donor I used be texted when B- was low

I don't know.How many times?

efb

fran17 wrote: »

I don't deal in inaccuracies,just the facts.James Reilly may have commissioned a study however his thoughts were quite clear on the matter while in government.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/06/20/james-reillys-letter-about-gay-blood-donors/

He also said that HIV infection rates in msm has been rising since 2004.

Have the rates increases for msm who have abstained for 1 year or more? Because that is the question at hand.

efb

fran17 wrote: »

I don't know.How many times?

I can remember a big crisis last summer, as they came into my workplace for donations

skooterblue2

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Had chickenpox when you were 3? Banned from donating

Parents took you on holiday to Africa when you were 8? Banned from donating

You kissed a boy when you were 16 and he then went on to die from sudden adult death syndrome? Ohhhhh sorry can't take the risk, Banned from donating.

These are not subject to the deferral. People who take intravenious drugs, have had foreign blood donations, have had Anal sex and lived abroad in certain counteries. I would love to hear people scientific backgrounds.

Before people start crying about the Iona Institute and gay haters. I would have voted for Senator Norris (met him on several occasions) for President (and appauled at the way he was treated), I have gay aquaintances and never once made a medical decision based on a persons sexuality.

This could bring about the collapse of blood banks credibility. I dont see the Irish Haemophilia Society backing it, I would also like to hear from the Hepatitis C support groups. If they dont back it there will be no credibility. This could result in a collapse in donations.

skooterblue2

fran17 wrote: »

.James Reilly may have commissioned a study however his thoughts were quite clear on the matter while in government.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/06/20/james-reillys-letter-about-gay-blood-donors/

He also said that HIV infection rates in msm has been rising since 2004.

He brought a proposal to cabinet that he didnt support? That sounds like he was pressurised. .......possibly by a lobby group?

fran17

efb wrote: »

Have the rates increases for msm who have abstained for 1 year or more? Because that is the question at hand.

But this is the whole crux of the issue.As you well know there is absolutely no way of gaining statistics regarding gay men who abstained for a minimum of 12 months because you cannot prove they have abstained.An issue like this which has gigantic consequences and domino effects that will effect every facet of the system cannot be regulated by ticking a box on a form.There must be a legal deterrent,with consequences,to counter it.
I would also be very sceptical to believe that a healthy active male,be him straight or gay,would abstain from sex for 12 months to be allowed to donate blood.It would be quite upstanding if one was to but again I would be quite sceptical of it.

Annasopra

fran17 wrote: »

But this is the whole crux of the issue.As you well know there is absolutely no way of gaining statistics regarding gay men who abstained for a minimum of 12 months because you cannot prove they have abstained.An issue like this which has gigantic consequences and domino effects that will effect every facet of the system cannot be regulated by ticking a box on a form.There must be a legal deterrent,with consequences,to counter it.
I would also be very sceptical to believe that a healthy active male,be him straight or gay,would abstain from sex for 12 months to be allowed to donate blood.It would be quite upstanding if one was to but again I would be quite sceptical of it.

Lots of them may have just had oral sex and not anal or maybe just didnt have sex. Not all gay men are constantly having anal sex you know. In fact that ESRI report you quoted earlier gives a high percentage of gay males who never have anal sex.

B_Wayne

The guy from the Haemophilia Society is in favour of removing as long as based on scientific evidence. So maybe the likes of Fran should stop pretending to be representative. It will be based on scientific evidence.
www[dot]herald[dot]ie/news/patients-to-have-say-in-gay-blood-ban-varadkar-30952243.html

fran17

skooterblue2 wrote: »

He brought a proposal to cabinet that he didnt support? That sounds like he was pressurised. .......possibly by a lobby group?

Yes a very good possibility of that.His actual words were "I would appreciate it if you would review the situation".However it was portrayed in the media as "o Reilly urges removal of ban".Never ones to let facts get in the way of a headline;)

efb

fran17 wrote: »

But this is the whole crux of the issue.As you well know there is absolutely no way of gaining statistics regarding gay men who abstained for a minimum of 12 months because you cannot prove they have abstained.An issue like this which has gigantic consequences and domino effects that will effect every facet of the system cannot be regulated by ticking a box on a form.There must be a legal deterrent,with consequences,to counter it.
I would also be very sceptical to believe that a healthy active male,be him straight or gay,would abstain from sex for 12 months to be allowed to donate blood.It would be quite upstanding if one was to but again I would be quite sceptical of it.

Lots of gay men I know don't bother with anal sex anymore especially as part of a ltr

efb

B_Wayne wrote: »

The guy from the Haemophilia Society is in favour of removing as long as based on scientific evidence. So maybe the likes of Fran should stop pretending to be representative. It will be based on scientific evidence.
www[dot]herald[dot]ie/news/patients-to-have-say-in-gay-blood-ban-varadkar-30952243.html

I said that earlier but I was ignored