[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
healthy

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 3252)
Message
File  []
close
fb-og-logo.jpg
325232523252
>> No. 3252 Anonymous
26th June 2015
Friday 4:52 am
3252 spacer
Let's say that I wanted to give blood but I'm not allowed to because I was love and cherished I slept with another man over 10 years ago. If I lied and donated my tainted blood would I get into trouble for it? I'm clean and definitely don't have bad aids, plus there's almost no way they'd find out, but I'm still worried.
Expand all images.
>> No. 3253 Anonymous
26th June 2015
Friday 5:13 am
3253 spacer
Lying is bad.
>> No. 3254 Anonymous
26th June 2015
Friday 5:17 am
3254 spacer
How the heck would they find out? Hire a private detective?

One of their doctors verbally told me it's OK if you went out with an ex-junkie, if you broke up with them over five years ago, so maybe they'd be more flexible if you explained the situation. I'm not sure.
>> No. 3255 Anonymous
26th June 2015
Friday 6:03 am
3255 spacer
>>3252
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14824310
>> No. 3256 Anonymous
26th June 2015
Friday 6:19 am
3256 spacer
>>3255
Oh, that's good to know. I must have misread the information on the NHS website.
>> No. 3257 Anonymous
26th June 2015
Friday 7:41 am
3257 spacer
Who gives a shit? Fuck them and their homophobia. You want to give blood, do it.
>> No. 3259 Anonymous
26th June 2015
Friday 1:17 pm
3259 spacer
>>3257
Fucking anything that walks is what got OP into this mess.
>> No. 3260 Anonymous
26th June 2015
Friday 1:54 pm
3260 spacer
>>3252

Over 10 years is fine, you can declare and still give blood.

They've changed the rules so that you have to be abstinent/free from drugs/not had a tattoo or piercing for a year. I don't really get why heteros get to have sex and I don't, when condoms exist, but that is how it is.
>> No. 3261 Anonymous
26th June 2015
Friday 1:59 pm
3261 spacer
>>3260
MSM are 'more at risk', or have greater prevelance of HIV, or something. It is totally discriminatory.
>> No. 3262 Anonymous
26th June 2015
Friday 3:23 pm
3262 spacer
>>3261

In fairness, we do have a vastly higher prevalence of HIV - nearly 6% of MSM are positive, versus the national average of 0.15%. Infection rates are rising rather than falling. The London scene is in crisis (in large part because of chemsex), with the infection rate there exeeding 12%. ARV treatment has made a lot of us dangerously complacent.

The question is why MSM are restricted from giving blood while people of African origin aren't, despite both groups having similarly high rates of HIV infection. I'm OK with the Blood Service being cautious, but I'm not OK with double standards.
>> No. 3263 Anonymous
26th June 2015
Friday 4:02 pm
3263 spacer
>>3262
The risk they're controlling is not the risk of infection but the risk of a false negative. Someone who was born with it will have been positive their entire adult life, and the tests will reliably pick them up. While Africans may well fall into this category, MSM typically do not, and there will be a window after infection during which they will not reliably test positive, and therefore neither they nor the doctor will know they have it.
>> No. 3264 Anonymous
26th June 2015
Friday 4:21 pm
3264 spacer
>>3262
As well as what >>3263 said, There are also additional restrictions which apply to Africa, so there are no double standards at all.
Blood donation is banned for anyone who has been outside of the country at all for the past 6 months, and for anyone who has had sex with anyone who has been sexually active in places like Africa in the past 12 months.
>> No. 3265 Anonymous
26th June 2015
Friday 5:32 pm
3265 spacer

Capture12.jpg
326532653265
>>3262
>> No. 3266 Anonymous
26th June 2015
Friday 5:40 pm
3266 spacer
>>3262

>people of African origin

Do you just mean first generation Africans? Or do you mean rates are disproportionately high for British-born black people too?
>> No. 3267 Anonymous
26th June 2015
Friday 5:46 pm
3267 spacer

Capture13.jpg
326732673267
>>3266

I've just googled this myself and I guess you mean the former.
>> No. 3268 Anonymous
26th June 2015
Friday 5:50 pm
3268 spacer
It confuses me how they come up with precise figures for how many undiagnosed people there are.
>> No. 3269 Anonymous
26th June 2015
Friday 7:15 pm
3269 spacer
>>3266

Both. Migration from countries with high HIV infection rates is clearly an important factor, but there are many other factors at work. About half of British Africans who have been diagnosed with HIV became infected while living in the UK. British-born Africans are at a lower risk of HIV infection than immigrants, but they're still a high-risk group.

The majority (67%) of British Africans are first-generation immigrants, infection rates differ widely across African nations (19% in South Africa vs 0.7% in Somalia) and different immigrant groups have differing patterns of settlement in the UK and sexual behaviour, so it's very difficult to predict future trends in HIV infection rates amongst British Africans. Demographic shifts could cause a very rapid increase in new infections.

http://www.nat.org.uk/media/Files/Publications/NAT-African-Communities-Report-June-2014-FINAL.pdf

>>3265

The restriction applies to people who have recently been sexually active in Africa, but not to people who have been sexually active with Africans. The latter represents a very significant route for new infections, but is not acknowledged by the Blood Service.

>>3268

It's an educated estimate. There are various methods, but the most common uses antibody testing on recently diagnosed patients to get a rough idea of how recently they were infected. This can then be extrapolated out to cover a whole demographic. That estimate can be fine-tuned by looking at historical trends, as everyone who becomes HIV positive will eventually either get diagnosed through testing or develop an AIDS-defining illness.

http://www.who.int/diagnostics_laboratory/hiv_incidence_may13_final.pdf
>> No. 3270 Anonymous
26th June 2015
Friday 7:26 pm
3270 spacer
>>3269
>The restriction applies to people who have recently been sexually active in Africa
Strictly speaking it also applies to people who have recently been sexually active with people who have been sexually active in Africa at any time.
>> No. 3271 Anonymous
26th June 2015
Friday 10:18 pm
3271 spacer
All these rules are bullshit. If I needed a lifesaving blood transfusion and the only compatible donor was a Congolese rent boy well i think i'd take my fucking chances. They screen all donated blood rigorously anyway, so I really can't understand the discrimination.
>> No. 3272 Anonymous
26th June 2015
Friday 10:28 pm
3272 spacer
>>3271 please refer to the explanation in >>3263 regarding windows for antibody tests to be effective.
>> No. 3273 Anonymous
26th June 2015
Friday 10:34 pm
3273 spacer
I'd just like to say thanks to anyone attempting to give blood because that's one of the main reasons my dad didn't die when I was 10.

>>3271

In some contrast to my above statement, I don't believe all the reasons people get blood transfusions are life or death.
>> No. 3274 Anonymous
26th June 2015
Friday 10:49 pm
3274 spacer
>>3272
This. It's a major fucking trade-off they have to pull, between taking more blood and risking more tainted goods making it into the supply. Understandably they'd rather be confident of their product even if it means being short a few pints.
>> No. 3275 Anonymous
27th June 2015
Saturday 12:55 am
3275 spacer
Sorry to be that guy, but I'm slightly surprised nobody's mentioned BEEFY POZ LODES yet.
>> No. 3276 Anonymous
27th June 2015
Saturday 7:04 am
3276 spacer
>>3275
It was hinted at in the OP.

Why is giving blood so awkward these days? In them days you could just walk in but now you have to pre-book and it's a right faff trying to get a convenient time. No wonder donations are falling.
>> No. 3277 Anonymous
27th June 2015
Saturday 6:07 pm
3277 spacer
>>3264
>Blood donation is banned ... for anyone who has had sex with anyone who has been sexually active in places like Africa in the past 12 months.

And yet if you're a bloke fucking his husband who saved himself until marriage, you're also banned. Why the rigorous questioning about your and that of your partners' sexual history if you leave the country, but not if you're gay?

Women can't donate if they have sex with a man who has recently had sex with a man. Why aren't we drawing the line there for men too?
>> No. 3278 Anonymous
27th June 2015
Saturday 6:43 pm
3278 spacer
>>3277
>Why the rigorous questioning about your and that of your partners' sexual history if you leave the country, but not if you're gay?
I beg your pardon?
>> No. 3279 Anonymous
27th June 2015
Saturday 6:44 pm
3279 spacer
I have donated religiously since I was eligible and if there's the slightest chance of you infecting someone was something you stay the fuck away.
>> No. 3280 Anonymous
27th June 2015
Saturday 7:53 pm
3280 spacer
>>3279
You can't catch gay.
>> No. 3281 Anonymous
27th June 2015
Saturday 8:10 pm
3281 spacer
>>3280
I caught gay, it's awful.
>> No. 3282 Anonymous
27th June 2015
Saturday 8:15 pm
3282 spacer
>>3281
Is it a right pain in the arse?
>> No. 3283 Anonymous
27th June 2015
Saturday 8:18 pm
3283 spacer
>>3280
Uganda manages to catch them just fine.
>> No. 3284 Anonymous
27th June 2015
Saturday 9:41 pm
3284 spacer
>>3283

They're cheating. It's easy to catch notorious bum drillers. They're notorious, and the drilling noise gives the game away.
>> No. 3349 Anonymous
8th July 2015
Wednesday 6:17 pm
3349 spacer
>>3260
>In them days you could just walk in
Yeah, you still can. I did last time and it even says on appointment letters that you can, but doing so might incur an extra wait.
>> No. 3350 Anonymous
8th July 2015
Wednesday 6:22 pm
3350 spacer
>>3349
I think it's been three times this past year I've walked into my local permanent blood donation centre and just been refused to be seen at all without an appointment. Down there it seems they only accept walk-ins nominally.
>> No. 3353 Anonymous
8th July 2015
Wednesday 7:37 pm
3353 spacer
>>3350
With that sort of attitude you'd swear they weren't desperately short of donated blood.
>> No. 3355 Anonymous
8th July 2015
Wednesday 7:43 pm
3355 spacer
>>3353
No I wouldn't, because that would be a silly, facile, spiteful thing to think. I can conceive that there are probably one or more other reasons for them being unable to see me than them not actually being short of blood.

Return ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password