 |
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
I do hate to say it, but you Americans are seemingly more bigoted than the average Russian teenager.
And that is saying something.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Smith
This is consistent with the CDC data. I am also skeptical of your 7.3 percent for reasons stated below. |
Er. So?
People with known cases don't go to give blood donations or sperm donations, and since we're comparing new cases of black people versus new cases of gay people, I don't see what difference it makes. If anything, it plays more into my favor, since black people are more likely to be in a state of poverty, which means they're less likely to get tested, which means their percentage is likely even higher.
quote:
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. |
My mistake, the wording was poor in the article.
quote:
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. |
So 29% of new HIV cases are with gay men.
5% of people in the USA are gay men, giving us: 11,686 / 14,597,507 = 0.0008% infection rate per year for gay men. I am only counting new cases, because old cases are irrelevant, as they won't be donating blood or sperm (presumably  ).
So if about 14M gay men went to donate blood, only 0.0008% of them would likely be infected with HIV. You feel this risk is too high, and this figure is so high it'll cost considerable amounts of money? What do you say to the blood banks who are apparently always asking for more blood?
quote:
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. |
Clearly it can't be yours, as you have not supported it with any facts at all. And I honestly don't see how you can have issue with a number like a 0.0008% infection rate each year. It's rather callous of you to disenfranchise a minority by telling them they can't donate. If the number was 25%, I could see it. But 0.0008%? Give me a break.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Last Conformist
|
 |
of Calakmul
Jul 2003
time: 06:36
|
|
@MrFun: In principle, I'd be fine with blood/sperm banks discriminating based on pretty much anything. In practice, discriminating wrt race may carry unacceptable political costs, which hardly is the case with discriminating based on sexual orientation.
@Anita: Deafness isn't a disability, but a way of life? Your definitions of "disability" and "way of life" must be fairly unusual ...
@All: There is no such thing as safe HIV testing of blood or sperm. Saying "it doesn't matter because it's gonna be tested anyway" is either ignorant or dishonest.
Edit: Added missing words.
Last edited by Last Conformist on 21-05-2004 at 18:47
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
I don't have any problem with gay men donating sperm, as long as it is properly 'labeled' and the person who will be 'using' it knows what that label is.
For example, if it is donated anonymously, it should be marked as anonymous and the person who receives it should be told if there are or are not restrictions (and what sort of restrictions) on who can donate.
I would also be in favour of having less anonymous donations where various characteristics of the donater were retained, such as age, height, weight, skin colour, sexual preference, likes and dislikes etc, but not the name. This would still be partially anonymous but give the user some ability to choose the characteristics (or at least influence the perceived characteristics) of their child.
In other words, as long as the receiver is made aware of the situation and is given a choice whether or not to use sperm which could have been donated by a gay man, it is fine. The problem only asires if there is no possibility for a receiver to obtain sperm which they are sure has not been donated by a gay man (but then, the same thing can be said for height, weight, skin colour etc etc).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Adam Smith
|
 |
Maryland, USA
Jan 1970
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
People with known cases don't go to give blood donations or sperm donations |
A physician can't assume that. Medically and legally you have to ask, since no subsequent test is perfect.
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
So if about 14M gay men went to donate blood, only 0.0008% of them would likely be infected with HIV. |
For the third time now, if all 14M gay men went to donate blood, the probability of infection would depend on the cumulative number of cases in the population, not on the additional number of new cases each year.
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Clearly it can't be yours, as you have not supported it with any facts at all. And I honestly don't see how you can have issue with a number like a 0.0008% infection rate each year. |
I don't have time to teach you remedial math, but I really want to commend your determination.
For misunderstanding the BBC article that you yourself posted as evidence;
For making a complete hash of the facts;
Not once;
Not twice;
But three times;
And above all, for coming back for more,
I hereby name you the second recipient of the Order of the Black Knight.
The competition for this award is very tough, especially in OT. But I always knew, deep in my heart, that someday you would win. Congratulations on a job well done.
 Attachment: black knight.jpg
This has been downloaded 27 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Smith
A physician can't assume that. Medically and legally you have to ask, since no subsequent test is perfect. |
Who said a physician can assume that? For the sake of risk analysis, you can presume that the vast majority of people who know they're infected with HIV will not donate blood.
quote:
For the third time now, if all 14M gay men went to donate blood, the probability of infection would depend on the cumulative number of cases in the population, not on the additional number of new cases each year. |
Do you not understand the concept of infection rate?
If you're going to say gays have a "high risk" of infection, cite some sources.
You'll also need to:
A) Define "high rate"
B) Cite the rate of infection for homosexuals
For someone who purports to base his judgement of "facts", it's very amusing that you've neglected to include a single fact in yoru case, and attempt to dismiss any which speak against your case with nothing but rhetoric.
quote:
I don't have time to teach you remedial math, but I really want to commend your determination.
For misunderstanding the BBC article that you yourself posted as evidence;
For making a complete hash of the facts;
Not once;
Not twice;
But three times;
And above all, for coming back for more,
I hereby name you the second recipient of the Order of the Black Knight.
The competition for this award is very tough, especially in OT. But I always knew, deep in my heart, that someday you would win. Congratulations on a job well done. |
It's you that deserves the award. You have not provided any link, no evidence, and no support for any of your claims. Confronted with common sense, and even evidence of a minisicule infection rate, you choose to ignore it and treat it like 25% or more of all gay people willing to donate -- to help people, even -- will have HIV. Even if you play with my numbers and increase the infection rate by several orders of magnitude, it's still a miniscule number.
The fact is, I think you've been caught with your pants down. You seem to have assumed the HIV infection rate for homosexuals is far higher than it really is, probably because it seems like gays and HIV are constantly linked in everyday things like TV shows. Why? Because it adds drama. What better way to have a victimized gay character, than to give him a terminal illness that most people attribute to his being gay?
As long as the infection rate is EXTREMELY well below 1%, there's no reason at all you should ban an entire minority from donating. That's callous, that's irresponsible, and it's insensitive to the recipients waiting for blood transfusions and it's insensitive to the people who want to help people by donating blood, only to get a slap in their face telling them "your kind can't do that".
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Smith
What are you, Fez's DL?? I did the calculations based on YOUR LINK for cryin out loud.
I have work to do. I don't have time for any more of this nonsense. |
You did?
So what is the rate of infection for gays, and why do you consider it high risk?
That's the critical part. You have to explain why a risk factor that's WELL below fractions of 1% can be considered high risk.
You've consistently ignored the most important parts of the debate. You point out errors in my numbers, when you probably realize that even if corrected by several orders of magnitude, the number remains extremely tiny.
You wave your arms mumbling something about gays being "high risk", which costs money because sometimes they are found to be infected in tests which are always done anyway.
You're being inconsistent in identifying minorities who have a higher risk than straight, white males -- blacks (gay or straight) have a far higher infection rate than white people, as do hispanics, yet I don't see you advocating we prevent blacks or hispanics from donating blood or sperm -- which you should do to be consistent. The reason you're not doing that, is because it's more blatant discrimination. Society still tolerates discrimination against gays far more than it does people's race.
So get with it:
- Identify the risk factor for gays
- Explain why this is considered high risk
- Explain why you don't consider similar bans across other minorities with risks higher than straight white men
You haven't done any of these three.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Asher, you have a predilection for  .
You are getting so badly PWNED, it's becoming almost painful. |
How can I get PWNED by someone who isn't even in the debate?
How can he make blanket statements like 'gays are high risk' without identifying their risk, nor defining what high risk is?
Are you even reading the thread, or are you here as AS' cheerleader? Maybe you can help me out.
1) What is the risk of infection for gay people?
2) Why is this high risk?
3) Why is this different from other minorities, such as blacks, which have significantly higher risks than straight white men?
Are you guys not reading the question, should I write in small words, or do you have no answers (and thereby prancing around pretending like you're "PWNING" people).
And for christsake, it's PWN3D, not PWNED. Don't do things half-assed. 
|
|
| |
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 09:06
.
I'm sorry 
|
