Scientifically speaking, should gays be allowed to donate blood?

>>8211974
>2016
>not knowing that blood testing exists

>>8211983
this
not allowing gays to donate blood because of >muh STDs implies they don't test their blood
untested hetero blood seems more concerning to me than certified clean niggerfaggot blood

>>8211974
Receiving transfused blood when you have a circulatory collapse or are experiencing exsanguination is a life-saving treatment, as in

>If you don't get this treatment you will die from this condition 100%

AIDS has a survival rate of greater than 0% and although crippling and expensive, its better than being dead, no?

>>8211983
>>8211991
>>8212071
Not OP but there was a reason why MSM were previously not allowed to donate.

Essentially it boiled down to acceptable risk. MSM statistically have a higher likelihood of STDs such as hepatitis and HIV. This is still true.

In the past blood tests had lower sensitivities and so there exists the risk of an infected sample getting through.

With improved testing accuracy they've reviewed it and have since allowed MSM who are clean to donate. At least in UK afaik.

Google JPAC blood transfusion guidelines if you want to read more.

>>8211974
Scientifically speaking, gayness is not
transmissible via blood transfusion.

>>8211974
I refuse to have blood transfusions from MSM. Even if you can't "catch gayness", I could still have gay blood running through my penis when I get a boner.

I just can't have that.
Nice try gays.

>>8211974
In my opinion, no, not really. Gay people are way more likely to get HIV because anal sex is a really easy way to spread it. So, nobody is going to be injected with an HIV containing blood transfusion. However, if a single sample of blood in a grouping is found to have HIV, then the whole grouping (not just the sample that is contaminated) is thrown out. I don't know that letting gays donate will result in more being thrown out, but I think that there will likely be basically no net change (more blood donated, but more samples thrown away because of HIV). However, there is no shortage of blood. The red cross always says there is to get more blood, but there really isn't (plus O- is the most common blood type, I think like 37.5% of the population has it, but don't quote me on that). I don't think it really matters either way, but I would have rather kept it the other way because it is contrary to what the SJWs want.

>>8211974
>Scientifically speaking, should gays be allowed to donate blood?

Should poor people be able to donate blood? The same logic applies about transmission of disease.

>>8212680
>(plus O- is the most common blood type, I think like 37.5% of the population has it, but don't quote me on that)

That's wrong. All negative blood is rare. O+ is pretty common, but not everyone can have it.

>>8212680
O neg isn't the most common.
Percentages vary by country and ethnic group, but demand for this group usually outstrips supply because it is used as emergency blood to be given to (almost) all patients when group-matched blood isn't available quickly enough.

>>8212629
but HIV is

>>8212692
Yeah, I'm talking in developed countries, like the US. Very very rarely is the supply depleted. I'm not talking about third world shitholes like Haiti.

File: 2AFC36DA00000578-0--a-38_1438356834866.jpg (201KB, 962x757px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 962x757px

>>8212699
Aye - during 9/11 boatloads of people donated blood, and we wound up having to toss out enough to fill up over 100 olympic sized swimming pools. Doctors were literally begging people to stop donating because there was no way to store it.

Though, really, we shoulda found a way to have some fun with all that extra blood.

>>8212629
[citation needed]

>>8211991
>>8211983
They are tested in batches

it's a retarded method

>>8211974
>Would the extra supply of blood be worth the higher risk of STDs?
Would it be worth zero increased risk of STDs? Would be hard to argue that it wouldn't.

>>8212853
>what are false negatives

>>8212899
> what are true positives

>>8212906
>what are negative positives

>>8212910
>what are false positives

>>8212899
A problem rarer than false positives, which affects straight donors as well.

>>8212919
Yeah but you're neglecting the base rate

>>8212922
You're neglecting all of the straight people having unprotected (possibly anal) sex. Stop falling for the decades-old gay AIDS panic. Thx.

>>8212928
It's a lower rate you idiot

Did you fail HS probability or what?

>>8212948
There's also a higher rate of occurrence in heterosexual blacks. Guess someone forgot to tell the Red Cross about that. Or maybe statistics isn't what this is about.

>>8212956
You're arguing with me, not the red cross

>>8212958
And to stay on topic, if you stand by probability alone, petition the Red Cross to stop allowing black donors.

>>8212961
If you really cared to stay on topic, the claim I opposed was that there wouldn't be any increased risk of getting an STD if you allowed gays to donate blood:
>>8212853

Now whether the, perhaps slight, increase would be worth it due to the extra blood is another question, and that's what OP is asking about.