Ban on gay blood donors upheld by panel

[MrFun]

There is only minimum risk if we include gay people - all blood is tested equally.

[Ming]

Hmmm... Ben making up numbers after numbers... no surprise.

[Ben Kenobi]

There is only minimum risk if we include gay people - all blood is tested equally.

Once again, the question wasn't answered.

If you could halve your risk by excluding 5 percent of your donors, would you do it.

This is called ratios, Mr. Fun. Please try to keep up.

[giblets]

Once again, the question wasn't answered.

If you could halve your risk by excluding 5 percent of your donors, would you do it.

This is called ratios, Mr. Fun. Please try to keep up.

This hypothetical question is impossible to answer without knowing what the risk is.

[Ming]

If you could halve your risk by excluding 5 percent of your donors, would you do it.

And you base this question on What Facts? A totally irrelevent question in regards to this discussion, since you have no clue on any of the real facts.

Just keep pulling stuff out of your ass Ben... we are all used to it.

[Ben Kenobi]

This hypothetical question is impossible to answer without knowing what the risk is.

The actual risk value is irrelevant to the question. C'mon guys.

If you could reduce your risk by 50 percent by excluding 5 percent of the donors would you do it? Yes or no. If no, fine. If yes, fine. But answer the damn question.

[Ben Kenobi]

And you base this question on What Facts? A totally irrelevent question in regards to this discussion, since you have no clue on any of the real facts.

What, that 50 percent of AIDS infections are men who have had sex with other men?

That they are 5 percent of the population?

Which fact do you dispute, ming?

[giblets]

The actual risk value is irrelevant to the question. C'mon guys.

If you could reduce your risk by 50 percent by excluding 5 percent of the donors would you do it? Yes or no. If no, fine. If yes, fine. But answer the damn question.

How can anyone make a reasonable estimate of how many people will contract HIV via blood transfusions with and without donations from gay people if they don't know what the HIV risk value is with and without donations from gay people? Without that how can they determine whether the increased blood supply that allows more lives to be saved would be worth the increase in HIV cases associated with allowing gay people to donate? Are you really this stupid?

The benefit from halving the risk is proportional to the risk! Dumbass.

[Ming]

What, that 50 percent of AIDS infections are men who have had sex with other men?

That they are 5 percent of the population?

Which fact do you dispute, ming?

Your math... as usual.
As usual, you take information, twist it, add "ben math", or just make crap up, and then claim it's a fact.

You are such a bigot, and a hateful person... totally ignoring the true message Jesus gave us.

[Ben Kenobi]

totally ignoring the true message Jesus gave us.

Tune in, turn on, drop out?

Oh wait, that was the prophet Leary. I always get those mixed up. The Zietgeist and all.

[Ben Kenobi]

The benefit from halving the risk is proportional to the risk! Dumbass.

So, you are saying that in some circumstances you would halve the risks and in other cases that you would not halve the risk?

Where's your line then?

How can anyone make a reasonable estimate of how many people will contract HIV via blood transfusions with and without donations from gay people if they don't know what the HIV risk value is with and without donations from gay people?

You miss the point. The overall risk of people has no effect on the proportions of the risk. The ratio of 5 percent applies, irrespective to the object.

This is why the effect of screening is irrelevant to the point. Whether you screen or not, excluding that same 5 percent is going to drop your risk by the exact same proportion. You'll halve the unscreened risk, or halve the screened risk, depending on whether you screen or do not.

Without that how can they determine whether the increased blood supply that allows more lives to be saved

You're assuming this is an independent variable. What if excluding that 5 percent actually increased the blood supply because people had more confidence in the supply? What if including the 5 percent actually decreased the overall blood supply, because people had less confidence.

This is why your approach is fatally flawed.

[Solomwi]

Are the same measures/costs justified to halve a 2% risk as are to halve a 90% risk?

[Ben Kenobi]

If they are dependent variables, what would be the costs associated with the policy if the blood supply goes up as a result? Wouldn't that be a win/win situation?

[giblets]

So, you are saying that in some circumstances you would halve the risks and in other cases that you would not halve the risk?

Where's your line then?

There is probably a gray area in which the question is not easily answered.

You miss the point. The overall risk of people has no effect on the proportions of the risk. The ratio of 5 percent applies, irrespective to the object.

This is why the effect of screening is irrelevant to the point. Whether you screen or not, excluding that same 5 percent is going to drop your risk by the exact same proportion. You'll halve the unscreened risk, or halve the screened risk, depending on whether you screen or do not.

WTF? The size of the risk determines how many lives are saved by halving the risk, and presumably we should make a decision based on which saves more lives.

You're assuming this is an independent variable. What if excluding that 5 percent actually increased the blood supply because people had more confidence in the supply? What if including the 5 percent actually decreased the overall blood supply, because people had less confidence.

This is why your approach is fatally flawed.

Is there any evidence that allowing homosexuals to donate would make heterosexuals significantly less likely to donate? I suspect you're just making up crap.

[monolith94]

Just out of curiosity, is there anything preventing men from simply lying to the blood donation people? I remember when I donated blood they didn't exactly do a thorough background check, they just accepted what I said and took my blood.