Leo Again

fran17 · 26-01-2015 07:25PM

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Fecking hell dude, try to have a little bit of cop on.

It's already been pointed out to you by a few people, the 500% figure means absolutely nothing because:

1. 500% isn't the figure when the 1 year waiting period is factored in.
2. A % increase is absolutely useless without more information. If currently 1 in 1 billion get infected, and the risk increases to 5 in 5 billion, it's not really a big concern is it?

"Dude",Maybe if you managed to educate yourself regarding blood stock and transfusion history In this state surrounding the Anti D/hepatitis debacle you might be less flippant on the matter and take the 1200 women who became infected into account.I wont resort to petty insults like yourself,the best revenge is to be unlike him who performed the injury.

The statistics may not be to your arguments liking but that is something I suggest you take up with the UK blood service policy review results.Or are you saying that Wikipedia has an alternative motive on this issue?
I would completely disagree with you on your final point,if 1 case was to become 5 cases,which would be a 500% increase,then it would be a big concern.

spikeS · 26-01-2015 07:28PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

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

You know what they say about the ones that most vocal gays are usually in the closet, maybe he is far more interested in gay men then we know

Timberrrrrrrr · 26-01-2015 07:30PM

spikeS wrote: »

You know what they say about the ones that most vocal gays are usually in the closet, maybe he is far more interested in gay men then we know

Closet?

Narnia springs to mind

evolving_doors · 26-01-2015 07:36PM

ill wait to see what simon coveney comes out with to 'outgay' leo

bodice ripper · 26-01-2015 10:33PM

spikeS wrote: »

You know what they say about the ones that most vocal gays are usually in the closet, maybe he is far more interested in gay men then we know

That's not fair. He can be spiteful and obsessed on his own merits.

Zab · 27-01-2015 01:21AM

fran17 wrote: »

The statistics may not be to your arguments liking but that is something I suggest you take up with the UK blood service policy review results

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.

Capt'n Midnight · 27-01-2015 01:49AM

donegaLroad wrote: »

I thought they thoroughly screened all blood for HIV?

LOL
it would take too long, use too much blood and cost too much, and that's just for the diseases we know about. There's probably stuff out there we don't know about HIV and CJD aren't exactly ancient history.

look at mad cow disease , all they had to do was break the chain of adding suspect farm animals to animal feed, course that took years to do , and in the end they killed the entire UK cattle herd.

It's not just HIV there's things like Hepatitis too.

Kuru is 100% fatal in humans. It's rare so no one tests for it. Incubation times can be up to 27 years. No one's going to spot an epidemic of something similar in time.

Zab · 27-01-2015 02:05AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

LOL
it would take too long, use too much blood and cost too much, and that's just for the diseases we know about. There's probably stuff out there we don't know about HIV and CJD aren't exactly ancient history..

They do screen all blood for HIV

Timberrrrrrrr · 27-01-2015 08:51AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

LOL
it would take too long, use too much blood and cost too much, and that's just for the diseases we know about. There's probably stuff out there we don't know about HIV and CJD aren't exactly ancient history.

Scaremongering, sure you could get hit by a bus if you leave the house but if you stay in 24/7 sure the place could burn down while you sleep :rolleyes:

look at mad cow disease , all they had to do was break the chain of adding suspect farm animals to animal feed, course that took years to do , and in the end they killed the entire UK cattle herd.

The whole cattle herd? EVERY single cow in the UK? OK am gonna have to see some evidence for that sensational claim please.

It's not just HIV there's things like Hepatitis too.

Which they check for, the questionnaire is also their for a reason.

Kuru is 100% fatal in humans. It's rare so no one tests for it. Incubation times can be up to 27 years. No one's going to spot an epidemic of something similar in time.

So no body should ever be allowed to give blood because there is a possibility they may have one of the millions of diseases that exist in the world? I bet if it was a close family member of yours that needed a blood transfusion to live you wouldn't give a flying **** where the blood came from.

amdublin · 27-01-2015 09:24AM

I think they do test for hiv. I'd imagine it's just a spot test/doesn't use much blood.

efb · 27-01-2015 09:24AM

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.

Look at you with your FACTS!!! WE'RE DEALING IN HYZTERIA HERE!!!

Timberrrrrrrr · 27-01-2015 09:30AM

amdublin wrote: »

I think they do test for hiv. I'd imagine it's just a spot test/doesn't use much blood.

Anyone who has donated blood (I think most of the scaremongers haven't) knows that they take a sample vial of your blood for testing AS WELL as the pint bag for donation use.

circadian · 27-01-2015 09:36AM

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.

/thread

DeJa VooDoo · 27-01-2015 09:43AM

Leo and FG, dragging our health service lower and lower.

http://iti.ms/1Casa09

How long will it take the shills to cop on to themselves?

Timberrrrrrrr · 27-01-2015 09:47AM

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

Leo and FG, dragging our health service lower and lower.

http://iti.ms/1Casa09

How long will it take the shills to cop on to themselves?

Ah would ya ever go away repeating that ****e every few posts ffs, If you think someone on here is a shill then report it to the mods and admin with whatever evidence you have and they will ban the account because shilling is against the sites T&C. You do have actual evidence right? Because on the flip side making false allegations like that is also against the sites T&C!

Thephantomsmask · 27-01-2015 10:45AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Kuru is 100% fatal in humans. It's rare so no one tests for it. Incubation times can be up to 27 years. No one's going to spot an epidemic of something similar in time.

There are no diagnostic tests for prion diseases. EEG, CSF and MRI are usually non specific and an autopsy after death is confirmatory, it is a clinical decision to treat somebody as having a prion disease, especially as the symptoms overlap with many other neurological diseases. Aside from that Kuru Kuru is pretty much unknown outside Papua New Guinea as it was spread by eating their dead out of respect, it's CJD and fatal insomnias that are found here.

floggg · 27-01-2015 10:49AM

Thephantomsmask wrote: »

There are no diagnostic tests for prion diseases. EEG, CSF and MRI are usually non specific and an autopsy after death is confirmatory, it is a clinical decision to treat somebody as having a prion disease, especially as the symptoms overlap with many other neurological diseases. Aside from that Kuru Kuru is pretty much unknown outside Papua New Guinea as it was spread by eating their dead out of respect, it's CJD and fatal insomnias that are found here.

Fatal insomnias?

You mean my morning coffee isn't as harmless as I thought it would be?

Thephantomsmask · 27-01-2015 10:57AM

Ah you're safe enough, my morning eye opener in college was three doppio espressos in one cup ;-)

floggg · 27-01-2015 11:09AM

Thephantomsmask wrote: »

Ah you're safe enough, my morning eye opener in college was three doppio espressos in one cup ;-)

Espresso? Somebody went to trinity!

The_Captain · 27-01-2015 11:25AM

Thephantomsmask wrote: »

There are no diagnostic tests for prion diseases. EEG, CSF and MRI are usually non specific and an autopsy after death is confirmatory, it is a clinical decision to treat somebody as having a prion disease, especially as the symptoms overlap with many other neurological diseases. Aside from that Kuru Kuru is pretty much unknown outside Papua New Guinea as it was spread by eating their dead out of respect, it's CJD and fatal insomnias that are found here.

Fatal Insomnia sounds like a death metal band. First album:Eating Their Dead

fran17 · 27-01-2015 11:29AM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Scaremongering, sure you could get hit by a bus if you leave the house but if you stay in 24/7 sure the place could burn down while you sleep :rolleyes:

The whole cattle herd? EVERY single cow in the UK? OK am gonna have to see some evidence for that sensational claim please.

Which they check for, the questionnaire is also their for a reason.

So no body should ever be allowed to give blood because there is a possibility they may have one of the millions of diseases that exist in the world? I bet if it was a close family member of yours that needed a blood transfusion to live you wouldn't give a flying **** where the blood came from.

Sure there is many risks we all take everyday and there is rules and procedures in place to minimise the risk.This law currently provides one of these procedures,to remove it does nothing other than provides some token equality gesture.
Oh well who needs a law when we have a questionnaire right?

efb · 27-01-2015 11:33AM

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

Leo and FG, dragging our health service lower and lower.

http://iti.ms/1Casa09

How long will it take the shills to cop on to themselves?

That was under James' tenure to be fair

Timberrrrrrrr · 27-01-2015 11:35AM

fran17 wrote: »

Sure there is many risks we all take everyday and there is rules and procedures in place to minimise the risk.This law currently provides one of these procedures,to remove it does nothing other than provides some token equality gesture.
Oh well who needs a law when we have a questionnaire right?

What is it that Ireland bringing itself into line with the rest of the world scares you? Have you ever donated blood before?

Thephantomsmask · 27-01-2015 11:36AM

floggg wrote: »

Espresso? Somebody went to trinity!

jaysus no, I'm not minted or blessed. It was NUIG followed by DIT (Do It Tomorrow)

floggg · 27-01-2015 11:41AM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

What is it that Ireland bringing itself into line with the rest of the world scares you?

The gays.

floggg · 27-01-2015 11:43AM

Thephantomsmask wrote: »

jaysus no, I'm not minted or blessed. It was NUIG followed by DIT (Do It Tomorrow)

Hmmm. In my day we couldn't afford anything for breakfast, except the dregs we collected from the bottom of the Dutch Gold can.

Then again, spending all our money on Dutch Gold might have had something to do with it...

Thephantomsmask · 27-01-2015 12:30PM

the only thing that could make me forget about being perma-damp from Galway rain was the coffee. There was a constant smell of wet dog in morning lectures.

Back on topic, if blood is tested and found to be free of disease then there should be no issue using it. There are many other questions on the application forms that people answer, with no way of policing, that can cause harm. There is no way of knowing if someone is lying about past iv drug use and they would have a higher risk of HIV than the general population.

Ctrl Alt Delete · 27-01-2015 12:35PM

At the risk of being labelled a homophobe (as is the current trend these days for someone who says anything remotely anti gay).

The Minister should not be having any hand, part or play in relation to this because he is gay and has a conflict of interest. The blood ban for gays has been in place for years for a good reason.

People can be tri-sexual for all I care but he is going on a very "fairy" stance since coming out on Radio between this and stating he is going to the New York paddys days gay pride parade and it is frankly unbecoming of a minister.

fran17 · 27-01-2015 12:35PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

What is it that Ireland bringing itself into line with the rest of the world scares you? Have you ever donated blood before?

Yes I have donated blood in the past,what have you to gain by constantly asking that question? I think you'll find that irelands policy is in line with most countries, Austria,China,France,Germany,Holland and the USA.That's of course if you trust wikipedia this time.

floggg · 27-01-2015 12:36PM

Thephantomsmask wrote: »

the only thing that could make me forget about being perma-damp from Galway rain was the coffee. There was a constant smell of wet dog in morning lectures.

Back on topic, if blood is tested and found to be free of disease then there should be no issue using it. There are many other questions on the application forms that people answer, with no way of policing, that can cause harm. There is no way of knowing if someone is lying about past iv drug use and they would have a higher risk of HIV than the general population.

I don't see Fran getting agitated about the flimsy protection offered by the questionnaire from persons who have recently returned from malarial areas either, which was the grounds on which my blood was refused in the past.

What was to stop me from lying about that?

You would almost think it wasn't actually the safety of the blood he was concerned about, but simply those who are giving it...

Leo Again

Comments