Leo Again

floggg

efb wrote: »

I think (s)he means that I have anal intercourse with other men. lifestyle might be easier to say without thinking about the evil fornication...

I wouldn't want to presume what Fran spends his time imaging gay men doing.

He must think of you doing it a lot if he think you can make a lifestyle out of it!

efb

floggg wrote: »

I wouldn't want to presume what Fran spends his time imaging gay men doing.

He must you doing it a lot if he think you can make a lifestyle out of it!

Well the gogo dancing work has dried up of late...

skooterblue2

floggg wrote: »

it would seem to me it's in everybody's interest to make sure as many people can donate as possible (subject to the requirement to avoid unnecessary risks).

But hey, as you say nobody has a right to give blood, and it's no skin off my nose if they don't.

And I genuinely hope you never do need a donation. But for e
everyone else who has a family history of diabetes, Cancer, heart failure or god forbid ever be in a situation where you would immediately need a blood transfusion. Wouldnt you like to know you are getting the blood with the lowest risk?

floggg

skooterblue2 wrote: »

And I genuinely hope you never do need a donation. But for e
everyone else who has a family history of diabetes, Cancer, heart failure or god forbid ever be in a situation where you would immediately need a blood transfusion. Wouldnt you like to know you are getting the blood with the lowest risk?

Sure, and if banning gay men for ever significantly reduces risk fine.

And it's not for me to decide where the balance lies between reducing risk and restricting supply.

As I said, they rule seems a bit arbitrary though (two men in a stable relationship with each other are much lower risk than a single 25 year old I would have thought). But if there is operational benefit setting it that way, I again won't dispute it.

fran17

efb wrote: »

500% -WRONG
TOP PRIORITY- WRONG
LEO PUSHING HIS AGENDA - WRONG

Oh well if you put it in capital letters then I concede...efb you really are directing your anger at the wrong person.As much as you'd like to believe that I personally played a lead role in this donation ban and the reasons and statistics for it I honestly didn't.

The 500% figure is correct but you are looking at it in a different context,for a different purpose,for different means and ultimately for a different outcome.

This subject is one of Leo Varadkar's top priorities.He commented on gay blood donations within one minute of coming out on the Miriam o Callaghan show.You cannot honestly tell me that was coincidence.

Any thoughts I gave on his priorities or agenda were personal opinions.I cannot,or have not claimed,to be 100% correct or you cannot be 100% sure I'm wrong.Unless the user efb is the real Leo Varadkar.Are you?

fran17

efb wrote: »

Have you ever given blood?

Yes.

fran17

floggg wrote: »

I have been scaremongering?

Pot. Kettle. Black

Please do point out where I have been scaremongering.

I have not been scaremongering.Everything I have stated has been factual and accepted by all relevant bodies.You have raised doubts about the motives and agenda of the IBTS which are without any foundation.

shruikan2553

Is that 500% stat still being used? Skipped over a bit there as facts weren't sticking yet.

floggg

fran17 wrote: »

I have not been scaremongering.Everything I have stated has been factual and accepted by all relevant bodies.You have raised doubts about the motives and agenda of the IBTS which are without any foundation.

Reallly? What about Misuse of statistics?

Or your arguments around the weaknesses of the questionnaire - which only arises when gay men are answering.

And i don't really think the fact that there was lots of prejudice and ignorance regarding gay men and HIV in the 80s is under doubt when the policy was set.

Did I say it was the reason the policy was introduced? No.

But tHat doesn't mean I discount the notion that it played some part.

fran17

floggg wrote: »

What exactly is efb's lifestyle, and how are you in a position to know anything about it.

efb wrote: »

I think (s)he means that I have anal intercourse with other men. lifestyle might be easier to say without thinking about the evil fornication...

floggg wrote: »

I wouldn't want to presume what Fran spends his time imaging gay men doing.

He must think of you doing it a lot if he think you can make a lifestyle out of it!

efb wrote: »

Well the gogo dancing work has dried up of late...

Guys really,to keep playing the camp slapstick gay joke card is getting really really old.As Leo Varadkar himself says,being gay does not define him and it shouldn't define you either.

floggg

fran17 wrote: »

Guys really,to keep playing the camp slapstick gay joke card is getting really really old.As Leo Varadkar himself says,being gay does not define him and it shouldn't define you either.

lol.

You are the one saying it defines efb's lifestyle.

And I dont think it defines me at all. It's your obsession I was poking fun at.

Edit: there's nothinh camp or slapstick about anal sex or go-go dancers. In the future, please try to ensure choose stereotypes which are appropriate to the context for put down purposes.

floggg

fran17 wrote: »

This subject is one of Leo Varadkar's top priorities.He commented on gay blood donations within one minute of coming out on the Miriam o Callaghan show.You cannot honestly tell me that was coincidence.

Any thoughts I gave on his priorities or agenda were personal opinions.I cannot,or have not claimed,to be 100% correct or you cannot be 100% sure I'm wrong.Unless the user efb is the real Leo Varadkar.Are you?

And in what context did he raise it?

It was an issue already on his desk, and he wanted to make full disclosure before making a decision on it.

We have established this was an issue before he took over in health, so he didn't bring it up.

Do you think he should refuse to do anything on the report presented to him for some reason?

efb

fran17 wrote: »

Guys really,to keep playing the camp slapstick gay joke card is getting really really old.As Leo Varadkar himself says,being gay does not define him and it shouldn't define you either.

Your arguments are old and full of holes, you commented on my lifestyle Fran so that's for you to correct
You are persisting with the 500% thing even though it was roundly discredited here

efb

It wasn't one minute the first few were spent circling round his coming out.

B_Wayne

Just so Fran doesn't play with your words. Fran engaged in misrepresenting through stats. For example, if I had 1 egg and went up to 5,that'd be a five hundred percent increase. Not a significant figure but by describing as a percentage, anything can seem ominous. Anyway, Fran medical evidence on matter is what will decide how the minister will go forward as he himself said. But rave about the dreaded gay blood in the meanwhile sure, doubt many will take you seriously though.

Kurtosis

Flem31 wrote: »

Two days ago the trolley count was 427 with an average over the last 10 days of 319.
Just correcting your false claims re 100s and 200s the last two weeks
lowest figure in the 10 days is 281.

Gotta hand to Liam Doran's crew and their mad obsession with statistics

http://www.inmo.ie/Trolley_Ward_Watch

Apologies, I had been getting figures from twitter where the counts must have been carried out at a different time of the day to the nurses'. Also a couple of these correspond to days with missing data on the INMO site. Anyway sorry for using incorrect/non-comparable figures. The point stands that the trolley crisis has improved.

Flem31 wrote: »

Re your other point, maybe he should concentrate on the Health Priorities he announced on the 23rd of this month, with
"25 health priorities provides us with a targeted plan against which we can measure progress"

Strange that blood donations is not in the top 25 priorities

http://health.gov.ie/blog/press-release/varadkar-lynch-publish-health-priorities-for-2015/

Perhaps he is concentrating on these, hence the term priorities? I'm finding this line of argument a bit unclear - first it's a problem that blood donations shouldn't be a priority, then it's that the issue isn't on the list of priorities!


The core of this issue is whether changing this policy will provide sufficient benefit (in terms of extra units of blood) to outweigh the risks (of additional infected units of blood). This obviously also has to be considered in the context of what other actions could be taken to increase the number of blood units and what the costs/risks of these would be.

I certainly don't know what the correct approach is, and unless anyone has read this IBTS report or spent a good few weeks carrying out the requisite research and modeling of alternative scenarios, I doubt anyone else could make an informed decision on this either. The accusations of bias with regard to anything and everything relating to this issue due to Varadkar's sexuality just seems trivial really.

skooterblue2

B_Wayne wrote: »

doubt many will take you seriously though.

hmmm the Haemophilia Society seem to take it seriously. Then they get ignored and told to use lottery money. Blood is a very serious business, people with short memories shouldnt comment. Maybe you should ask someone who lost someone to AIDS in the 80's due to bad blood products. HIV testing is far from perfect. The ban is more than justified and protects the recipient.

Kurtosis

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Ironically yes actually I can't give blood in the ROI because I grew up in NI well I couldn't when I tried back in the 2000's.
If they are going to remove the restriction talked about it does smack of a political maneuver when the other blanket restrictions remain in place.
These are public health concerns I don't think they are in place because I'm an inferior person because of where I lived, its because a blanket restriction is the safest option in terms of public health*.

* and also presumably because irish blood services is very sensitive after its catastrophic failures in the past

The reason for the blanket exclusion relating to living in NI is the risk of CJD (or mad cow disease) and the lack of test available to screen for such prion diseases and the long incubation period. The reason for the blanket exclusion of sexually active homosexuals is the risk of HIV/AIDS, however there appears to be a sufficiently specific and sensitive test to detect this if there has been at least 12 months incubation - hence why a change in policy is being considered, and probably triggered by a similar policy change in other countries.

All of the blood donor restrictions should be evidence-based and if new evidence or cost-effective testing advances come to light, of course policies should be reconsidered and implemented if the benefits outweigh the risks.

B_Wayne

skooterblue2 wrote: »

hmmm the Haemophilia Society seem to take it seriously. Then they get ignored and told to use lottery money. Blood is a very serious business, people with short memories shouldnt comment. Maybe you should ask someone who lost someone to AIDS in the 80's due to bad blood products. HIV testing is far from perfect. The ban is more than justified and protects the recipient.

Already stated that it will be decided based on medical conclusions(including risk factors against benefits) . Fran's motivation is not that of concern, I'll happily support whatever the conclusion is. While Fran will find another way to rage about the gay agenda..

efb

skooterblue2 wrote: »

hmmm the Haemophilia Society seem to take it seriously. Then they get ignored and told to use lottery money. Blood is a very serious business, people with short memories shouldnt comment. Maybe you should ask someone who lost someone to AIDS in the 80's due to bad blood products. HIV testing is far from perfect. The ban is more than justified and protects the recipient.

I thought it was Hep B?

The eighties were over 30 years ago testing has greatly improved

skooterblue2

efb wrote: »

I thought it was Hep B?

The eighties were over 30 years ago testing has greatly improved

Showing your age there...... There was never Aids in Ireland until it was bought into the country. You probably never heard of Vincent Hanley from Clonmel either. 100 Haemophilicac in Ireland received infected blood products from the United states. The blood was tested for AIDS but there was a better French Test out there that was less cost effective.

The HIV Test needs 3 months between infection to showing a positive.

It was Hepatitis C, which was a different case ...... which was due to dodgy pactices at the Blood bank and no one has been help professionally responsible. Hepatitis is not over for these thousands of Women and some men who recieved bad blood products. Maybe you should ask them should there be any relaxation of procedures? I wouldnt trust the Government on relaxing the blood practices and I wouldnt trust them on owning up to it either.

You know the feeling when you are tired after pulling an all nighter and you are miserabley cold despite you have a hot drink and wrap up and go to bed? Now imagine that everyday for the rest of your life? That is scerosis of the liver. Clearly we have learned nothing from history if we cant remember these disasters. You may have forgotten but others live with the mistakes and negligence of others.

fran17

B_Wayne wrote: »

Just so Fran doesn't play with your words. Fran engaged in misrepresenting through stats. For example, if I had 1 egg and went up to 5,that'd be a five hundred percent increase. Not a significant figure but by describing as a percentage, anything can seem ominous. Anyway, Fran medical evidence on matter is what will decide how the minister will go forward as he himself said. But rave about the dreaded gay blood in the meanwhile sure, doubt many will take you seriously though.

Listen "B Wayne",alias name,registered recently ahem...Its not wise to perceive what people's points are and attempting to dictate what you think somebody may or may not do in rebuttal is ignorant to the spirit of debate.Please don't attempt to speak for me or anyone other than yourself in the future.

Flem31

penguin88 wrote: »

Apologies, I had been getting figures from twitter where the counts must have been carried out at a different time of the day to the nurses'. Also a couple of these correspond to days with missing data on the INMO site. Anyway sorry for using incorrect/non-comparable figures. The point stands that the trolley crisis has improved.



Perhaps he is concentrating on these, hence the term priorities? I'm finding this line of argument a bit unclear - first it's a problem that blood donations shouldn't be a priority, then it's that the issue isn't on the list of priorities!


The core of this issue is whether changing this policy will provide sufficient benefit (in terms of extra units of blood) to outweigh the risks (of additional infected units of blood). This obviously also has to be considered in the context of what other actions could be taken to increase the number of blood units and what the costs/risks of these would be.

I certainly don't know what the correct approach is, and unless anyone has read this IBTS report or spent a good few weeks carrying out the requisite research and modeling of alternative scenarios, I doubt anyone else could make an informed decision on this either. The accusations of bias with regard to anything and everything relating to this issue due to Varadkar's sexuality just seems trivial really.

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.

efb

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Showing your age there...... There was never Aids in Ireland until it was bought into the country. You probably never heard of Vincent Hanley from Clonmel either. 100 Haemophilicac in Ireland received infected blood products from the United states. The blood was tested for AIDS but there was a better French Test out there that was less cost effective.

The HIV Test needs 3 months between infection to showing a positive.

It was Hepatitis C, which was a different case ...... which was due to dodgy pactices at the Blood bank and no one has been help professionally responsible. Hepatitis is not over for these thousands of Women and some men who recieved bad blood products. Maybe you should ask them should there be any relaxation of procedures? I wouldnt trust the Government on relaxing the blood practices and I wouldnt trust them on owning up to it either.

You know the feeling when you are tired after pulling an all nighter and you are miserabley cold despite you have a hot drink and wrap up and go to bed? Now imagine that everyday for the rest of your life? That is scerosis of the liver. Clearly we have learned nothing from history if we cant remember these disasters. You may have forgotten but others live with the mistakes and negligence of others.

And didl all the contaminated blood from msm?

Thankfully testing has come on in the last 25 years

B_Wayne

fran17 wrote: »

Listen "B Wayne",alias name,registered recently ahem...Its not wise to perceive what people's points are and attempting to dictate what you think somebody may or may not do in rebuttal is ignorant to the spirit of debate.Please don't attempt to speak for me or anyone other than yourself in the future.

Okay but everyone else is perfectly capable of reading your previous posts... There's a general stereotyping of gay people and comments on 'lifestyle' so I'm basing it on what I've seen you type.

efb

skooterblue2 wrote: »

hmmm the Haemophilia Society seem to take it seriously. Then they get ignored and told to use lottery money. Blood is a very serious business, people with short memories shouldnt comment. Maybe you should ask someone who lost someone to AIDS in the 80's due to bad blood products. HIV testing is far from perfect. The ban is more than justified and protects the recipient.

http://m.rte.ie/news/2015/0130/676655-blood/


They want any ban change based on scientific evidence which the minister, and separately, I, agree with

skooterblue2

efb wrote: »

Thankfully testing has come on in the last 25 years

still takes 3 months to get a true positive... testing is far from perfect.

Once again its not about gay blood donations .... its about a safe source of blood for patients. Personally I think it is all about an excuse for a few people to have a hissy fit. If I could I would give blood but I have to live within the rules I am given. I think things are tight as regards blood but I doubt it is at Crisis level, that operations have to be postponed.

If you think about it it doesnt effect gay Doners. It just means they cant donate. Its like getting off Jury duty, something they are morally not obligated to do. they should be grateful for. It only affects the recipents

efb

skooterblue2 wrote: »

still takes 3 months to get a true positive... testing is far from perfect.

Once again its not about gay blood donations .... its about a safe source of blood for patients. Personally I think it is all about an excuse for a few people to have a hissy fit. If I could I would give blood but I have to live within the rules I am given. I think things are tight as regards blood but I doubt it is at Crisis level, that operations have to be postponed.

If you think about it it doesnt effect gay Doners. It just means they cant donate. Its like getting off Jury duty, something they are morally not obligated to do. they should be grateful for. It only affects the recipents

If the scientific evidence is there to say it's OK after 1 year then why not reduce the ban to that?

efb

And this isn't a personal crusade, I'd be banned on two counts atm, if the law changed

efb

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.

A minister doesn't just deal with one issue at a time you know. This is a 'juicy' story that's why it's in the papers and the others aren't. The home scandal in under investigation currently