Leo Again

skooterblue2 · 01-02-2015 10:04PM

penguin88 wrote: »

You have yet to provide any substantive evidence-based or statistical reason based on this case for your opposition. You have just argued from authority and used anecdotes.

there is one in the my past comment. you are going to have to take me at my word with head calculations. 50% of all new HIV cases come from 3% of the population. So for every two people who test positive for HIV one is gay. That is fine but when they represent only a small segment of the populations.
4,000,000 *0.03 = 120,000 total gay male populations
4,000,000 *0.97 = 3,880,000 non gay males

and if equal number are testiing positive in both in eqal ratio. that is disturbing
12:388 = 1: 32 approx
If you are gay you are 32 or 33 times more likely to be HIV positive than a non gay, Irish citizen.
There is a statistic interpreted for you. I could change it to 4.5m or just include the North and have 5 million but the ratio would be the same. I think there are just as many gay men up the north but just dont come out as often. Apparently they dont take kindly to them up there. Dont take my word for it ... here is Iris Robinson. you can try and twist it but ratio will be same. and apparently the number is rising on the whole HIV thing. Dont ask me here is Dr James Reilly.

efb · 01-02-2015 10:18PM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

there is one in the my past comment. you are going to have to take me at my word with head calculations. 50% of all new HIV cases come from 3% of the population. So for every two people who test positive for HIV one is gay. That is fine but when they represent only a small segment of the populations.
4,000,000 *0.03 = 120,000 total gay male populations
4,000,000 *0.97 = 3,880,000 non gay males

and if equal number are testiing positive in both in eqal ratio. that is disturbing
12:388 = 1: 32 approx
If you are gay you are 32 or 33 times more likely to be HIV positive than a non gay, Irish citizen.
There is a statistic interpreted for you. I could change it to 4.5m or just include the North and have 5 million but the ratio would be the same. I think there are just as many gay men up the north but just dont come out as often. Apparently they dont take kindly to them up there. Dont take my word for it ... here is Iris Robinson. you can try and twist it but ratio will be same. and apparently the number is rising on the whole HIV thing. Dont ask me here is Dr James Reilly.

Sexually active is the words they used. People who don't have sex for over a year are not SEXUALLY ACTIVE!!!

floggg · 01-02-2015 10:21PM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

that was a demonstartion of how long it takes to get an idea from white paper to legislation passed by the Senate. When you want something like that done in law you have to prepared to wait a long time.

You havent got any fact you have an Irish times article that rambles and a report you admit you cant comprehend. You dont have prior learning in this field. I am sure you are wonderful at what you do ... but this aint it.

If you deal with facts? You should be able to produce them. I dont feel I have to ... they have alread been presented. if 50% of new HIV cases come from 3% of the population and growing rapidly since 2004 ? That is astonishing. That means you are dealing with a high risk group. I am done for the day.. enjoy. When this sugar storm blows full belt Leo will be long gone.

It was one example, and one which is in no way comparable to the present situation. CP was a much moe complex matter to consider from both a legal perspective, was far ranging, raised possible constitutional issues, required to go through full Oireacthas debate, and most importantly faced considerable opposition from many in the country on moral grounds.

It is is no way comparable to this issue, which is a single and narrow issue, which (correct me if I am wrong) doesn't require any legislative change, won't raise any Constitutional issues, is unlikely to face much opposition or be subjected to Dail scrutiny. I imagine this will be done through a Ministerial Order (though again I'm open to correction on this), which means it won't go much further than the Dept of Health and relevant health organisations.

You really picked a terrible example, though perhaps you thought there was some wit to referencing CPs and bringing Colm O'Gorman into it.

floggg · 01-02-2015 10:24PM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

there is one in the my past comment. you are going to have to take me at my word with head calculations. 50% of all new HIV cases come from 3% of the population. So for every two people who test positive for HIV one is gay. That is fine but when they represent only a small segment of the populations.
4,000,000 *0.03 = 120,000 total gay male populations
4,000,000 *0.97 = 3,880,000 non gay males

and if equal number are testiing positive in both in eqal ratio. that is disturbing
12:388 = 1: 32 approx
If you are gay you are 32 or 33 times more likely to be HIV positive than a non gay, Irish citizen.
There is a statistic interpreted for you. I could change it to 4.5m or just include the North and have 5 million but the ratio would be the same. I think there are just as many gay men up the north but just dont come out as often. Apparently they dont take kindly to them up there. Dont take my word for it ... here is Iris Robinson. you can try and twist it but ratio will be same. and apparently the number is rising on the whole HIV thing. Dont ask me here is Dr James Reilly.

That doesn't address the actual risk levels if the ban on blood donation was to be relaxed, or how that risk level compares to other groups (both permitted and excluded), and any benefit which may be achieved by relaxing the ban (though increased donations).

I don't claim to know the answers, but they are the questions that need to be asked on this issue.

Kurtosis · 01-02-2015 10:34PM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

there is one in the my past comment. you are going to have to take me at my word with head calculations. 50% of all new HIV cases come from 3% of the population. So for every two people who test positive for HIV one is gay. That is fine but when they represent only a small segment of the populations.
4,000,000 *0.03 = 120,000 total gay male populations
4,000,000 *0.97 = 3,880,000 non gay males

and if equal number are testiing positive in both in eqal ratio. that is disturbing
12:388 = 1: 32 approx
If you are gay you are 32 or 33 times more likely to be HIV positive than a non gay, Irish citizen.
There is a statistic interpreted for you. I could change it to 4.5m or just include the North and have 5 million but the ratio would be the same. I think there are just as many gay men up the north but just dont come out as often. Apparently they dont take kindly to them up there. Dont take my word for it ... here is Iris Robinson. you can try and twist it but ratio will be same. and apparently the number is rising on the whole HIV thing. Dont ask me here is Dr James Reilly.

This isn't addressing the issue at hand. Individuals with HIV are banned from donating. What is being proposed is a deferral of 12 months for MSM, what proportion of HIV positive cases remain undiagnosed/asymptomatic 12 months after transmission? You're considering the abstract rather than the practicalities of the situation.

Wereghost · 01-02-2015 10:38PM

fran17 wrote: »

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

I'm not sure where you're getting the 500% thing from, or why you seem to think that a relative increase is meaningful. I'm relatively much more likely to get hit by a meteorite if I go for a walk rather than stay inside, but the likelihood is still infinitesimally small.

skooterblue2 · 01-02-2015 10:48PM

floggg wrote: »

It was one example, and one which is in no way comparable to the present situation. CP was a much moe complex matter to consider from both a legal perspective, was far ranging, raised possible constitutional issues, required to go through full Oireacthas debate, and most importantly faced considerable opposition from many in the country on moral grounds.

how is civil partnership more complex than getting infected with HIV/HEP C? If you dont like your partner you can legally seperate and later disolve the union and I am grand with that. If you dont like your partner you can run off leaving a "Dear John" and that is fine too. If you dont like your partner you can feed him rat poison and bury him out a hole in the backyard and say he ran off with the drama teacher, this is not advisable.

If you have HIV/Hep C you are probably going to die of complications from Pneuomia or Cirrhosis of the liver. You cannot get life insurance, a mortgage, have kids (safely) or look forward to retirement safe in the knowledge that there is medical insurance there to cover you. You will have problems passing a work medical exam. you cant go on holiday from either conditions and both are degenerative.

Do tell me how it is easier to get out of one of these diseases than it is to get shut of a some numpty you married or have a civil union with.

fran17 · 01-02-2015 10:51PM

Wereghost wrote: »

I'm not sure where you're getting the 500% thing from, or why you seem to think that a relative increase is meaningful. I'm relatively much more likely to get hit by a meteorite if I go for a walk rather than stay inside, but the likelihood is still infinitesimally small.

Well i'll have to dust off my astronomy hat for that one;) However you cannot legislate for that risk or the risk of being hit by lightning but you can for this.The statistics prove that this is a quite substantial risk and any ruling must be based on that risk.

skooterblue2 · 01-02-2015 10:58PM

fran17 wrote: »

Well i'll have to dust off my astronomy hat for that one;) However you cannot legislate for that risk or the risk of being hit by lightning but you can for this.The statistics prove that this is a quite substantial risk and any ruling must be based on that risk.

But Fran that risk is only for the recipient........ So as the Doner you have no responsibilities. Any hey if you do feck up.... or the lab fecks up .... its not your problem so as Billy Connolly would say you can do what ever you like..

Kurtosis · 01-02-2015 11:09PM

fran17 wrote: »

Well i'll have to dust off my astronomy hat for that one;) However you cannot legislate for that risk or the risk of being hit by lightning but you can for this.The statistics prove that this is a quite substantial risk and any ruling must be based on that risk.

What statistics say this is a substantial risk?

skooterblue2 · 01-02-2015 11:22PM

penguin88 wrote: »

What statistics say this is a substantial risk?

I dont know "Immunoglobulin is a safe clotting factor from a realiable and ethically sourced blood" 1982.
The facilities in Pelican house are state of the art. Our procedures are world leading there is no way cross contamination could occur. 1976- 1990.

there are 1,100 good reason to be wary of blood products...... actually 1000, because the Haemophilliacs are all dead including little boys and fathers. Remember they had to be burried in special coffins and the graves limed. And probably knock off another 100 for women who died because of cirrhosis of the liver. Ever wonder why Pam Anderson doesnt look so fresh any more? Hep C

Kurtosis · 01-02-2015 11:30PM

1) Those aren't statistics, and

2) That says nothing about the risk of this proposed policy change.

Deranged96 · 01-02-2015 11:33PM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

how is civil partnership more complex than getting infected with HIV/HEP C? If you dont like your partner you can legally seperate and later disolve the union and I am grand with that. If you dont like your partner you can run off leaving a "Dear John" and that is fine too. If you dont like your partner you can feed him rat poison and bury him out a hole in the backyard and say he ran off with the drama teacher, this is not advisable.

If you have HIV/Hep C you are probably going to die of complications from Pneuomia or Cirrhosis of the liver. You cannot get life insurance, a mortgage, have kids (safely) or look forward to retirement safe in the knowledge that there is medical insurance there to cover you. You will have problems passing a work medical exam. you cant go on holiday from either conditions and both are degenerative.

Do tell me how it is easier to get out of one of these diseases than it is to get shut of a some numpty you married or have a civil union with.

Not much of an issue for someone in a SSM?

skooterblue2 · 01-02-2015 11:48PM

penguin88 wrote: »

1) Those aren't statistics, and

2) That says nothing about the risk of this proposed policy change.

1) actually they are, they are figures that prove facts.
2) how do you propose we do a mass study and stress test it at the same time with live subjects.... (see outsourcing pharmaceutical to 3rd world nations) remember it takes only one vial in a fridge to cross contaminate a whole batch and it could be weeks before anyone could find out...... or years knowing the Blood Board

skooterblue2 · 01-02-2015 11:58PM

Deranged96 wrote: »

Not much of an issue for someone in a SSM?

Darling I am geting old in the tooth .....what is SSM?? with SSM and MSM and S&M and M&S MMDS....T&A PVC and ITV its hard for a guy to keep up with all these technologies.

however with Gay marriage likely same sex couple will be likely to adopt

Zab · 02-02-2015 12:12AM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

1) actually they are, they are figures that prove facts.
2) how do you propose we do a mass study and stress test it at the same time with live subjects.... (see outsourcing pharmaceutical to 3rd world nations) remember it takes only one vial in a fridge to cross contaminate a whole batch and it could be weeks before anyone could find out...... or years knowing the Blood Board

I don't get where you're going with all this.

You say you'd be willing to accept a consensus formed around an IBTS proposal in this country, although you seemingly reject the correctness of the same decision in the UK. Yet at the same time you also propose that the IBTS lack competence and have yet to be held accountable for their past failures. You seem to accept the possibility that methods and the resulting data can change over time leading to different risk profiles, and hence a different recommended policy, but you've decided that this hasn't happened as of yet without citing any actual data to support that position (and there is data supporting the counter position).

Either way this all seems a bit pointless. Almost everybody seems to be in agreement that this should be a decision based on risk rather than a political decision. It seems highly unlikely to me that there would be an attempt to force through a change without the IBTS' full consent.

Kurtosis · 02-02-2015 12:14AM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

1) actually they are, they are figures that prove facts.
2) how do you propose we do a mass study and stress test it at the same time with live subjects.... (see outsourcing pharmaceutical to 3rd world nations) remember it takes only one vial in a fridge to cross contaminate a whole batch and it could be weeks before anyone could find out...... or years knowing the Blood Board

They are not statistics, they are vague references to previous blood scandal(s). They do not support the claim that introducing a 12 month deferral in this case is a substantial risk.

Secondly, I do not propose a mass study and stress test with live subjects - this is a ridiculous suggestion and not suitable for assessing such a health policy. I propose we use the best available evidence to model the impact of changing policy to weigh up what the potential benefits and risks are.

skooterblue2 · 02-02-2015 12:24AM

penguin88 wrote: »

, I do not propose a mass study and stress test with live subjects - this is a ridiculous suggestion and not suitable for assessing such a health policy. I propose we use the best available evidence to model the impact of changing policy to weigh up what the potential benefits and risks are.

where do you think your FDA/TUV drugs get tested? You think animal trials dont happen?

how do you propose doing a stress test ? computer modeling?

Kurtosis · 02-02-2015 12:34AM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

where do you think your FDA/TUV drugs get tested? You think animal trials dont happen?

how do you propose doing a stress test ? computer modeling?

Pharmaceuticals go through multiple phases of trials, from animal trials to establish reliability, through to large scale randomised controlled trials in humans to establish efficacy. (We don't really deal with the FDA/TUV here though, it's the HPRA or EMA)

Using trials to evaluate a health policy change such as this would be a terrible idea. Not 100% sure what you mean by stress test, but in the context of a model to assess the impact of a policy a probabilistic sensitivity analysis would need to be done to determine how robust the results are.

skooterblue2 · 02-02-2015 12:41AM

Zab wrote: »

You say you'd be willing to accept a consensus formed around an IBTS proposal in this country, although you seemingly reject the correctness of the same decision in the UK. Yet at the same time you also propose that the IBTS lack competence and have yet to be held accountable for their past failures. You seem to accept the possibility that methods and the resulting data can change over time leading to different risk profiles, and hence a different recommended policy, but you've decided that this hasn't happened as of yet without citing any actual data to support that position (and there is data supporting the counter position).

Either way this all seems a bit pointless. Almost everybody seems to be in agreement that this should be a decision based on risk rather than a political decision. It seems highly unlikely to me that there would be an attempt to force through a change without the IBTS' full consent.

Well if it comes in I will just have to adapt. I cant see it coming in like that. I am willing to accept the concensus but I worry very realistically about the IBTS and their past (I dont see anyone disagreeing with me). I do realise Methods can change over time. There are still a lot of people very sore about the blood service and rightly so. The UK and many other counteries in Europe allow gay men to donate and I am not familiar with it. So I cant comment. In all fairness Gay men are in a high risk category. I do question why they want to donate if they are endangering other peoples lives.

efb · 02-02-2015 12:42AM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Well if it comes in I will just have to adapt. I cant see it coming in like that. I am willing to accept the concensus but I worry very realistically about the IBTS and their past (I dont see anyone disagreeing with me). I do realise Methods can change over time. There are still a lot of people very sore about the blood service and rightly so. The UK and many other counteries in Europe allow gay men to donate and I am not familiar with it. So I cant comment. In all fairness Gay men are in a high risk category. I do question why they want to donate if they are endangering other peoples lives.

MSM are

skooterblue2 · 02-02-2015 12:49AM

efb wrote: »

MSM are

MSM are what? that doesnt make sense, full sentences please

Zab · 02-02-2015 12:55AM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I do question why they want to donate if they are endangering other peoples lives.

The entire case for dropping the deferral to 12 months states that they aren't endangering people's lives, otherwise the deferral wouldn't be dropped, so that argument doesn't hold water. Obviously nobody wants to wantonly endanger anybody's life.

Kurtosis · 02-02-2015 12:58AM

And still waiting on statistics to support the claim that introducing a 12 month deferral for MSM poses a substantial risk.

skooterblue2 · 02-02-2015 01:19AM

Zab wrote: »

The entire case for dropping the deferral to 12 months states that they aren't endangering people's lives, otherwise the deferral wouldn't be dropped, so that argument doesn't hold water. Obviously nobody wants to wantonly endanger anybody's life.

I cant go without sex for 5 days..... how are young 20 something guys supposed to last a year?

skooterblue2 · 02-02-2015 01:24AM

penguin88 wrote: »

And still waiting on statistics to support the claim that introducing a 12 month deferral for MSM poses a substantial risk.

you find me a gay guy in his prime..... who is willing to stay off sex for a year ............ bit like looking for an honest pound earned by Charlie Haughey.

Also this MSM 12 month deferral thing is far from accepted science..... the majority of the world dont accept it.

efb · 02-02-2015 06:01AM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

MSM are what? that doesnt make sense, full sentences please

Gay men are not a high risk category, Men who have sex with me are.

efb · 02-02-2015 06:02AM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

you find me a gay guy in his prime..... who is willing to stay off sex for a year ............ bit like looking for an honest pound earned by Charlie Haughey.

Also this MSM 12 month deferral thing is far from accepted science..... the majority of the world dont accept it.

Anal sex, I'll find quite a few

efb · 02-02-2015 06:07AM

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/expert-suggests-five-year-ban-after-sex-on-blood-donations-1.2087459?localLinksEnabled=false

5 years yet they currently take blood from jurisdictions with less stringent rules....

Must be something with the gays living in Ireland so...

Timberrrrrrrr · 02-02-2015 08:56AM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Well if it comes in I will just have to adapt. I cant see it coming in like that. I am willing to accept the concensus but I worry very realistically about the IBTS and their past (I dont see anyone disagreeing with me). I do realise Methods can change over time. There are still a lot of people very sore about the blood service and rightly so. The UK and many other counteries in Europe allow gay men to donate and I am not familiar with it. So I cant comment. In all fairness Gay men are in a high risk category. I do question why they want to donate if they are endangering other peoples lives.

How are they endangering lives? Seriously your homophobia is starting to leak out again.

Leo Again

Comments