Leo Again

fran17 · 25-01-2015 05:10PM #1

Now that we have all taken time to get over the fact that Leo Varadkar is only 36,this story caught my attention today.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0125/675441-blood-donations/

A 2011 UK statistical and epidemiological review of blood service policy concluded that the introduction of blood from sexually active gay men into the system could increase the risk of HIV contaminating the blood stock by up to 500%.Leo Varadkar,our gay minister for health,wishes to reduce our laws governing against this.Is this anything more than party pump politics?

bodice ripper · 25-01-2015 05:12PM

Fran17, more interested in gay men than gay men are.

Menas · 25-01-2015 05:14PM

Have you considered posting this in the politics forum? You know, where it belongs?

fran17 · 25-01-2015 05:16PM

Trigger Happy wrote: »

Have you considered posting this in the politics forum? You know, where it belongs?

I believe this concerns all of society,not just politics.

efb · 25-01-2015 05:17PM

It isn't going to be a free for all, it will no longer be for life. If you haven't had Anal intercorse with another man in over a year I reckon.

Amirani · 25-01-2015 05:17PM

fran17 wrote: »

Leo Varadkar,our gay minister for health,wishes to reduce our laws governing against this.Is this anything more than party pump politics?

You mean by moving Ireland in line with what many other European countries have done? Allowing blood donations post a 1 year waiting period? I don't see why that would be "party pump politics".

efb · 25-01-2015 05:18PM

What's a party pump? Parish pump you mean (Water cooler being the modern phrase)

fran17 · 25-01-2015 05:19PM

efb wrote: »

It isn't going to be a free for all, it will no longer be for life. If you haven't had Anal intercorse with another man in over a year I reckon.

Yes that's what Leo is pushing for.But how would you know if one was being honest when answering that question?

donegaLroad · 25-01-2015 05:20PM

I thought they thoroughly screened all blood for HIV?

efb · 25-01-2015 05:20PM

fran17 wrote: »

Yes that's what Leo is pushing for.But how would you know if one was being honest when answering that question?

What if they lie about ever having anal sex with a man??? They can donate now. Ask those closet cases

efb · 25-01-2015 05:21PM

donegaLroad wrote: »

I thought they thoroughly screened all blood for HIV?

They do now

efb · 25-01-2015 05:23PM

Fran can you give blood? I'm permanently barred as it Stands. I used give regularly when I was allowed and I had 2nd rarest blood type (B-)

I get tested for STIs regularly. But my blood still isn't good enough

fran17 · 25-01-2015 05:24PM

donegaLroad wrote: »

I thought they thoroughly screened all blood for HIV?

We all know how stretched our health service is at the moment.Is a 500% risk something that could be justified?

fran17 · 25-01-2015 05:24PM

efb wrote: »

What's a party pump? Parish pump you mean (Water cooler being the modern phrase)

My sincere apologies.

efb · 25-01-2015 05:24PM

fran17 wrote: »

We all know how stretched our health service is at the moment.Is a 500% risk something that could be justified?

Leo's proposal wouldn't increase the risk to 500%

efb · 25-01-2015 05:25PM

fran17 wrote: »

My sincere apologies.

I doubt it

fran17 · 25-01-2015 05:28PM

efb wrote: »

Leo's proposal wouldn't increase the risk to 500%

Yes it could,statistically it could.However in light of the huge risk,the retention of the ban would increase the risk by 0%.

Amirani · 25-01-2015 05:28PM

fran17 wrote: »

We all know how stretched our health service is at the moment.Is a 500% risk something that could be justified?

It's not 500% increase in risk.

oppenheimer1 · 25-01-2015 05:28PM

fran17 wrote: »

Now that we have all taken time to get over the fact that Leo Varadkar is only 36,this story caught my attention today.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0125/675441-blood-donations/

A 2011 UK statistical and epidemiological review of blood service policy concluded that the introduction of blood from sexually active gay men into the system could increase the risk of HIV contaminating the blood stock by up to 500%.Leo Varadkar,our gay minister for health,wishes to reduce our laws governing against this.Is this anything more than party pump politics?

Its a bit unfair to say that gay men are banned from giving blood. They're not. Its men who have/had sex with men that are. Granted, gay men are a large subset of these.

Saying risk increases by 500% without giving context is very and I dare I say deliberately misleading. If over all risk is 0.001% a 500% increase means its only 0.005% as likely in an overall picture. When initial risk is low, multiples of the risk is still low.

efb · 25-01-2015 05:28PM

fran17 wrote: »

Yes it could,statistically it could.However in light of the huge risk,the retention of the ban would increase the risk by 0%.

No it couldn't.

efb · 25-01-2015 05:29PM

Worth such loose use of statistics do you free rep Iona?

Amirani · 25-01-2015 05:30PM

fran17 wrote: »

Yes it could,statistically it could.However in light of the huge risk,the retention of the ban would increase the risk by 0%.

Statistically, it wouldn't.

Also, giving relative changes in the risk level in this case is utterly meaningless and statisically ignorant.

Ghost Buster · 25-01-2015 05:32PM

Why are the religious so very very obsessed with what other adults (male in the main) do with their genitals and with all matters pertaining?

fran17 · 25-01-2015 05:32PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Its a bit unfair to say that gay men are banned from giving blood. They're not. Its men who have/had sex with men that are.

That's true.However if you relax the law as it stands then the reason to be truthful when answering questions is gone.

efb · 25-01-2015 05:34PM

fran17 wrote: »

That's true.However if you relax the law as it stands then the reason to be truthful when answering questions is gone.

So people are more likely to trek the truth with a life ban???

fran17 · 25-01-2015 05:35PM

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Statistically, it wouldn't.

Also, giving relative changes in the risk level in this case is utterly meaningless and statisically ignorant.

What are the changes to the risk level you speak of?

DeJa VooDoo · 25-01-2015 05:35PM

efb wrote: »

Fran can you give blood? I'm permanently barred as it Stands. I used give regularly when I was allowed and I had 2nd rarest blood type (B-)

I get tested for STIs regularly. But my blood still isn't good enough

Out of interest, why would you need to be tested for STI's on a regular basis?

Timberrrrrrrr · 25-01-2015 05:36PM

fran17 wrote: »

Yes it could,statistically it could.However in light of the huge risk,the retention of the ban would increase the risk by 0%.

Because heterosexual people don't have HIV right?

RGDATA! · 25-01-2015 05:38PM

fran17 wrote: »

We all know how stretched our health service is at the moment.Is a 500% risk something that could be justified?

Fran, did you actually read the study you mentioned in your OP?

Timberrrrrrrr · 25-01-2015 05:38PM

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

Out of interest, why would you need to be tested for STI's on a regular basis?

If you have sex on a regular basis with different partners then you should get checked regularly.

fran17 · 25-01-2015 05:38PM

efb wrote: »

So people are more likely to trek the truth with a life ban???

Its pretty simple as with any law,if you dilute it people will take advantage.Be it right or wrong that is human nature unfortunately.

Leo Again

Comments