 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Adam Smith
|
 |
Maryland, USA
Jan 1970
time: 00:36
|
|
Mr. Fun:
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
Sorry -- to justify unjust discrimination because "it will cost a little more" does not sound right. |
Any test will be both costly and imperfect. So when a donation is made there is always some chance that an infection will slip past the test and into the blood supply. Screening by risk factors helps reduce that chance. Given that testing is imperfect, how much are we supposed to pay for this supposed right to infect the blood supply? $1? $1000? $1000000? Note also, that the FDA regs do not apply to agreements between private individuals. They only apply to public blood supplies.
Asher:
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
So a minority in which 7.3% of all cases belong to is banned from blood/sperm donations, while a minority in which 55% of all cases belong to is permitted.
Obviously, your argument is bunk. |
My argument is not bunk. Your analysis is wrong. The question is not "What proportion of HIV cases are accounted for by blacks or gays?" The question from a screening perspective is "What proportion of blacks and gays have HIV?" Two very different questions. Gay men are clearly a high risk group. Blacks probably come out much lower, especially after you factor out other identifiable risks, such as IV drug use. Both you and the BBC article have conditional, marginal, and cumulative probabilities hopelessly confused.
In closing, I don't care whether you are liberal or conservative. I want policy based on facts, not personal prejudice.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Anita Blake
|
|
Deafness is not a disability, neither is homosexuality. It's just a difference, and until people like you, mr fun, get that, then we're going to keep having hate crimes.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Smith
My argument is not bunk. Your analysis is wrong. The question is not "What proportion of HIV cases are accounted for by blacks or gays?" The question from a screening perspective is "What proportion of blacks and gays have HIV?" Two very different questions. Gay men are clearly a high risk group. Blacks probably come out much lower, especially after you factor out other identifiable risks, such as IV drug use. Both you and the BBC article have conditional, marginal, and cumulative probabilities hopelessly confused. |
13% of the USA is Black.
~10% of the USA is gay.
55% of reported HIV cases are in black people.
7.3% of reported HIV cases are in gay people.
Are you sure that risk factors for black people are much lower?
And, even then, the infection rates of gay men is still tiny.
11,600 gay men were infected with HIV over 4 years. That's 2,900 per year.
The USA's population is 291,950,153 as of September 2003 according to the US Census.
10% of 291,950,153 is 29,195,015.
2,600/29,195,015 = 0.000089% infection rate.
So you're serious when you say we should deny 99.9911% of a minority's population the right to give blood and sperm, because 0.000089% of them get infected with HIV?
quote:
In closing, I don't care whether you are liberal or conservative. I want policy based on facts, not personal prejudice. |
Well, you're certainly not using facts. I'm not sure what I attribute your ridiculous position to, but facts would definitely not be it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
Anita Blake compares homosexuality to deafness. Doesn't anyone else here find this a tad ridiculous? Homosexuals are not disabled.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Anita Blake
|
|
I was using the Deaf couple as an example. It just ticked me off when someone said that deafness was a disability. The comparison that I made was that neither homosexuality nor deafness are disabilites, just different ways of life.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Adam Smith
|
|
Maryland, USA
Jan 1970
time: 00:36
|
|
I will take your word for that.
quote:
Originally posted by Asher 55% of reported HIV cases are in black people.
7.3% of reported HIV cases are in gay people. |
But the text of the article indicates quote:
black people account for 55% of all new HIV cases.(my emphasis) |
This is consistent with the CDC data. I am also skeptical of your 7.3 percent for reasons stated below.
quote:
Originally posted by Asher Are you sure that risk factors for black people are much lower? |
That is my understanding, especially after you factor out other identifiable risks, such as IV drug use, as I said before.
quote:
Originally posted by Asher And, even then, the infection rates of gay men is still tiny. 11,600 gay men were infected with HIV over 4 years. That's 2,900 per year. The USA's population is 291,950,153 as of September 2003 according to the US Census. 10% of 291,950,153 is 29,195,015. 2,600/29,195,015 = 0.000089% infection rate. |
This calculation is totally wrong for a number of reasons. First, the standard CDC measure is annual incidence, so the 11,600 is per year, not over a period of four years. Second, as the BBC article indicates, this is only for 29 states, excluding New York, California and DC, all of which have higher than average rates. (ie, this is part of the US, not world wide, as you claimed in a prevous post.) Third, it is my understanding that gay men are at risk, not lesbians. So cut the denominator in half. Lastly, and most importantly, the probability of infection depends on the cumulative number of cases in the population not on the additional number of cases each year, which is the number you used.
quote:
Originally posted by Asher So you're serious when you say we should deny 99.9911% of a minority's population the right to give blood and sperm, because 0.000089% of them get infected with HIV? |
Leaving aside the problems with your math, let me put it this way. The BBC article indicates there are 40,000 new cases each year, of which 11,686 are gay men. If the BBC numbers are correct, and the same proportion held back in previous years, then you can cut the problem size by 25 percent by screening out gay men. You can probably take off at least another 25 percent by screening out IV drug users. Any epidemiologist would be happy to have that kind of success before the first medical test is even run.
quote:
Originally posted by Asher Well, you're certainly not using facts. I'm not sure what I attribute your ridiculous position to, but facts would definitely not be it. |
I warned you that the BBC article was totally confused, and in addition you made a complete hash of the facts in two successive posts. I think its clear who's position is supportable.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-05-2004 03:20
|