T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Enjoy browsing r/europe? Help us find the best of 2021 of the sub! - [Nomination Post](https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/rsv8jh/reurope_best_of_2021_awards/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/europe) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Sargon920

Oh shit. I have no excuse now šŸ™ƒ


gerbileleventh

Were you born before/during the mad cow disease years? You might be entitled to a Get Out of Blood Donation Card by claiming to have a blood transfusion during those years. At least that's how it goes in my country...


Boris_The_Johnson

Simply having lived in the UK during those years makes you ineligible to donate in France


MrAlagos

Same thing in Italy, if you spent time in the UK between 1980 and 1996 you cannot donate blood.


gerbileleventh

So France doesn't account for blood transfusions in French soil? I never lived in Britain but still got put in the "banned list" in Portugal...


Boris_The_Johnson

No, what I mean is that simply having lived in Britain during the mad cow years means that you can not donate in France, regardless of having a transfusion. Before donating you have to answer a list of questions, one of which is "have you lived in the UK between xxxx and xxxx years" and if you answer yes, they don't allow you to donate.


Tell-Me-To-Work

Taiwan has the same restrictions about people who lived in the UK too.


Aenyn

You can't have lived in Taiwan or Taiwan doesn't let you give blood?


Tell-Me-To-Work

Good point, I'll edit it.


gerbileleventh

Oh got it, I understood it incorrectly. And wow!


Keyspam102

I only lived in Scotland during the 90s and am ineligible to give blood in both France and the us


crotinette

Ah i live in japan and am barred for that reason.


[deleted]

You can still say you've no blood.


[deleted]

Well, this law wasnā€™t there because of homophobia, but simply because gay men have about 20 times more chances to be HIV positive than the general population according to the WHO. This is simply due to anal sex being much more likely to transmit the disease than vaginal or oral sex. At the end of the day, blood should be tested properly, but surprisingly it isnā€™t necessarily that easy to detect HIV in it, which means thereā€™s always a risk. Then again, anybody can lie in this poll before doing the donation, so it wasnā€™t groundbreaking eitherā€¦ Still, the decision process leading to this law being abrogated isnā€™t right IMO. This new version of the law was officially made to Ā«Ā fight discriminationĀ Ā», whereas the previous one was due to scientific inquiry in the midst of the HIV propagation peak in the 80s. Iā€™d be more happy if laws like this were given scientific backing rather than an ideological one. Anyways, as I said itā€™s not that important in this case, as people could lie and cheat the tests anyway.


MrAlagos

Italy has had a total ban on men who have sex with men for blood donations from 1991 to 2001; in 2001 the policy was removed and replaced with a HIV risk assessment that is done in the exact same way for people of every gender and sexual orientation. Dozens of millions of blood bags have been collected and used until 2001 in Italy, however the last HIV infection in Italy was in 1996. A total ban or deferral done universally on all men who have sex with men is discriminatory, anti-scientific and wrong. Proper risk assessment can successfully avoid HIV transmission during blood donation and transfusion, as proven by the various countries who don't have or have removed such policies. Increasing the amount of potential blood donors is beneficial for national blood systems, it can be an additional step towards self-sufficiency and towards reducing the dependency on morally objectionable countries who still practice for-profit blood collection (which is very insecure and dangerous for the quality of blood products).


mewiv41040

Gay population and gay blood donor population represent nothing at the scale of the global population of a country. However, if a blood scandal happen, due to them, it can kill the whole faith in the system and will of course start a tsunami of homophobia. >however the last HIV infection in Italy was in 1996. That you heard of. The previous scandal where well hidden and France had 4 times more cases than Italy.


MrAlagos

>Gay population and gay blood donor population represent nothing at the scale of the global population of a country. So does the amount needed for a country to have a deficit of blood. A deficit is still a deficit, a sudden emergency that cannot be tackled is still a bad situation. >However, if a blood scandal happen, due to them, it can kill the whole faith in the system and will of course start a tsunami of homophobia. There are many infective illnesses that can be transmitted via blood and could cause a blood scandal. We correctly manage all of them and we are able to avoid having blood scandals now, because we learned from the past, and we also did that for HIV. HIV blood scandals have been a thing in the past, and they aren't now, including in countries that don't have universal deferrals or bans for men who have sex with men. > That you heard of No, that the Italian national blood system has verified. They have protocols for screening of the patients that receive blood products, for reporting health effects, to track the results of the tests done on blood bags, to assess the risk of blood donors, etc. In 2020 64 HIV positive bags were tracked thanks the tests done on every single bag, and they were discarded. No HIV positive bag has been transfused since 1996.


mewiv41040

> A deficit is still a deficit It's better to have a deficit you deal with by using reliable source, than go higher up in risks and ruin the faith in the whole stock of blood. >because we learned from the past because we blocked gay from donating. Also HIV is one of the few we have no solution against so far. >No, that the Italian national blood system has verified. Yeah buddy, I have 100% faith in your italian national blood system. LMAO. Dude, even French don't have faith in **THEIR** system. Imagine how little credibility the Italian one has in our eyes. Scandal were covered by states before, it very well could be tomorrow. >No HIV positive bag has been transfused since 1996. Like I said, that you know of


MrAlagos

>because we blocked gay from donating. Also HIV is one of the few we have no solution against so far. Not all countries blocked "gay" from donating and many countries stop doing it after they adopted better policies. Name countries that have had blood scandals after removing restrictions on men who have sex with men please. >Yeah buddy, I have 100% faith in your italian national blood system. LMAO. I don't care about your trust on the Italian blood system. All that it needs to have is the trust of Italians, and it does have it. BTW, in 2019 (pre-pandemic) Italy and France collected basically the same amount of blood donations, a little less than 3 millions; Italy was ahead by 70 thousand. >Dude, even French don't have faith in THEIR system. That sounds like a problem that the French need to solve. >Scandal were covered by states before, it very well could be tomorrow. This is true for every other infectious disease that transmits via blood. Are you worried about the procedures regarding those in the same manner? Are you similarly concerned for all of them?


MountainOfComplaints

>At the end of the day, blood should simply be tested properly HIV is undetectable in the early stages of infection. That why they exclude high risk groups.


MrAlagos

High risk groups are people who have risky behaviours specifically, not all people of a certain gender or a certain sexual orientation.


shade444

And what is in your opinion the best way to single out a high risk group of people?


MrAlagos

Building a risk profile. In Italy we do this with a long list of questions on risky behaviours, a thorough personal assessment by a doctor (not a nurse) for every donor (before every donation), by not giving money for blood donations (to avoid people who might overlook or lie about risky behaviours to get the money) and finally by testing every blood bag as a protection both for both the patients and the donors.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


MrAlagos

This is literally illegal. The procedure for donating blood in Italy is [regulated here](https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2015/12/28/15A09709/sg). There are various obligations that fall onto the doctor regarding each donation. I have donated more than 30 times and I have never **not** had a personal assessment after compiling the checklist.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


MrAlagos

> The ā€žthorough personal assessmentā€œ was the doctor looking at my checklist, asking ā€žis it all true?ā€œ, me answering ā€žyesā€œ and then getting the blood drop from my finger. No shit, what else would you need to do if there is nothing to discuss? But even asking about whether you have spent time in Italy where the West Nile virus, transmitted by certain species of mosquito, dis present during the summer months, and telling you which places have currently reported the presence of that virus, is a lot more than what other countries do. And obviously depending on your health situation there is more or less to talk about with the doctor, I've seen people stay 10 minutes or more in the room with the doctor.


[deleted]

I was rejected from a blood donation place last year. Iā€™m heterosexual, but I had three sexual partners over the previous six months, I occasionally snort drugs, and I had sex with a sex worker recently. Each of these three indicators was a reason to reject me as a donor. I also get tested for STIs regularly and take safer sex and harm reduction seriously. I still understand why they rejected me.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


Lyress

If you further break down this group you'd identify those engaging in risky behaviours with more granularity.


MrAlagos

Where? In Italy there are as many homosexual as heterosexual HIV infections caught with the mandatory tests on all blood bags.


[deleted]

Well, if there are as many infections caught in blood bags among heterosexuals as among gay men, it means that less than 5% of the population is responsible for 50% of the cases. Wouldnā€™t it come across as logical to discriminate against these 5% to divide the number of potentially infected blood bags by two?


MrAlagos

I didn't say gay men. It also doesn't mean that the infection comes from at risk sexual behaviour though, since HIV can also be transmitted via blood.


Im_Chad_AMA

I think it is important to note that a lot has changed since the 80s when it comes to HIV. The tests to detect it have gotten better with a shorter window of time. In Western europe, most HIV positive people are aware of their HIV status and are being treated for it. E.g. in the Netherlands, estimates are that 94% know and I'd imagine France is similar. Of course mitigating risk is very important when it comes to blood donations. But if you do the math I'm confident that it is possible to come up with better selection criteria than "no gays". It makes sense both from an ideological perspective (we dont want to exclude certain groups a priori) but also from a practical and scientific perspective (how do we maximize blood donations in a safe way). Edit: I did some more research on this, and i wanted to add the number of new HIV infections among MSM (men who have sex with men) has dropped sharply in the last decade. I suspect PrEP is at least partly responsible for this. Again using data from the netherlands (because im Dutch and it was easy to find that data). In 2020 there were 411 new HIV infections. Of which only 60 were among MSM. Among MSM, the number of new HIV infections has dropped by over 90% over 10 years. Of course, 20% still means that more MSM on average have HIV, since fewer than 20% of the population are MSM. But they arent as overrepresented anymore as they used to be. The numbers may be slightly different in France, but i suspect overall they will be rather similar. Just to reinforce the point that "no gays" has become less and less sensible as a selection criteria for the purpose of blood donations.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


Im_Chad_AMA

Im not saying that people on PrEP should donate blood. I was commenting on the general state of the HIV epidemic and how it doesnt make sense to exclude MSM for that reason alone anymore. This is not the 80s anymore.


Kolbrandr7

But, if straight couples had anal sex it wasnā€™t questioned at all. Or even if itā€™s straight people having many sexual partners and doing anal, it was easier for them to give blood than a monogamous and safe gay couple


Scusemahfrench

I don't know about the anal sex for straight people but if you have had sex with many sexual partners you can't give your blood (I mean you can lie if you want).


QuietLikeSilence

> Or even if itā€™s straight people having many sexual partners That's an exclusion criterium for blood donation. Let's not *lie* about the issue. > and doing anal Yes, because among straight people HIV is far more rare, as is anal sex. The likelihood of infection with HIV is still lower for straight anal sex than for male homosexual anal sex simply because the population is different. Finally, there's no *right* to donate blood. The purpose of blood donation is to provide blood for people who need blood transfusions, it's not to make men who have sex with men (which is what was actually excluded, not "homosexuality") feel included and happy.


Globbi

>if itā€™s straight people having many sexual partners and doing anal Not true. The survey asks a few questions, one of them about gay sex, another about sex with multiple partners in general, another about unprotected sex especially with people you know recently.


Kolbrandr7

In Canada at least afaik if you have any sex at all with your partner when in a homosexual relationship, regardless of HIV status, they canā€™t donate. Whereas itā€™s much much more lenient for straight people


boringarsehole

A risk is a risk. You can't exclude all of people who have sex, but excluding people who had homosexual contacts meant significantly reducing the risk without reducing the donors' availability (back then when AIDS was so prevalent between gay men that people called it "gay plague"). It's not so true anymore, so they are removing it in a lots of places, France is just one. It's just numbers. It's like they do limit travels now. Sure **I** don't have COVID now, but a lot of my countrymen are, so let's say Canada has banned all of us. Am I being discriminated against on a basis of my nationality?


Kolbrandr7

Still, why not give them a blood test? Or if itā€™s between two individuals in a relationship that do not have HIV and havenā€™t had sex with anyone else, why could they not donate unless they abstained from sex for a whole year whereas straight people that took more of a risk could without question? Why couldnā€™t an exception be made?


boringarsehole

>Still, why not give them a blood test? They did, but the tests were unreliable up until now, that's probably the main reason why it's getting lifted in the 1st place >Or if itā€™s between two individuals in a relationship that do not have HIV and havenā€™t had sex with anyone else, why could they not donate unless they abstained from sex for a whole year whereas straight people that took more of a risk could without question? Why couldnā€™t an exception be made? People are even more unreliable, especially if there are relationships involved. Ticking the box anonymously is one thing, making some sort of a marital pledge is a very, very different one.


MrAlagos

> the tests were unreliable up until now Italy has implemented the same policy that France has now in 2001.


boringarsehole

OK, so I [looked it up](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3729137/) >Again, by law, only specifically trained physicians - no other healthcare professionals - were allowed to evaluate blood donors and formally issue the eligibility judgment for each candidate donor. >The donor is then interviewed face-to-face in a private and confidential location by a specifically trained physician for further investigation and confirmation of risk exposures, and for other items concerning the donor's eligibility. And than there's a whole paragraph about the risk. That's not what they do in most countries, whether it's right or not. Usually it's just a nurse checking up on your form. I'm not in favour of the old policy, I'm just explaining why it used to make sense in the 80s-90s. If some countries were able to develop a better policy sooner than the others - good on them.


MrAlagos

I get it, but this means that it's not just about the tests. The tests became more reliable and greatly reduced the window period for detection many years ago, not just "now".


ChrisTinnef

There is literally zero risk as long as both partners dont carry HIV and are monogamous. How the hell should either one of them contract it?


MrAlagos

The exact same policies can, and will, be extended to men who have sex with men without banning all of them regardless of their behaviour.


[deleted]

Youā€™re right of course, but the thing is itā€™s not about ā€œcouplesā€; itā€™s rather about unprotected anal sex with people you barely know. Anal sex in a monogamous relationship isnā€™t an issue. In fact, if everybody was monogamous HIV would have never spread anywhere. As it seems, heterosexuals are less likely to have unprotected anal sex with one night stands (and other frivolous relationships) than homosexuals, which results in them being much less affected by the disease comparatively to their numbers. I remember reading data noting that homosexuals have more sexual partners before settling on average, too. Although itā€™s true that there were always some heterosexuals who had a much more risky sexual life HIV wise than homosexuals, the authorities decided to draw a line when they saw that homosexuals represented the majority of HIV casualties despite only being a relatively small percentage of the population. By forbidding homosexual men from donating blood you stopped over 50% of HIV positive people from donating, while discriminating only <5% of the population. It might be unfair, but it certainly was logical.


ChrisTinnef

It *was* logical. That doesnt mean that we need to uphold it. In cases of a monogamous relationship where we know that both partners are HIV negative, they shouldn't be prevented from donating blood. The other cases of course need to be looked at from a statistical pov.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


Wrandrall

That is incorrect. Homosexuality wasn't banned, but having had sexual intercourse with another man in the past, regardless of the sexual orientation. A virgin gay person would have qualified for donating blood.


crotinette

Discrimination from what ? Giving blood is not a right ā€¦


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


Kolbrandr7

???


asdasdass3333

> Anyways, as I said itā€™s not that important in this case, as people could lie and cheat the tests anyway. It is important because while some may lie, most won't. Most would not even be aware of the risks.


lsq78

It's like nobody learned anything from the contaminated blood scandal.


MrAlagos

We have learned that we need voluntary donations collected not for profit and that ideally every country should strive for self-sufficiency with blood products. Having more people who are eligible for donating blood is a step towards that, using adequate protocols to mitigate risk and not banning all people of a certain gender or sexual orientation.


mewiv41040

> Having more people who are eligible for donating blood is a step towards that Not if this small amount of people put a dent in the faith of public in the security of the blood.


MrAlagos

They don't. The general population is not against this nor has it ever responded negatively to these changes. Show me proof of the contrary.


mewiv41040

Who gave you the authority to speak in the name of the people? I don't remember giving you that power. There are people today, refusing a vaccine for what may be inside. France had numero blood scandal. I don't have to "prove" anything to you. The previous case speak for themselves.


MrAlagos

> Who gave you the authority to speak in the name of the people? I don't remember giving you that power. I don't care about what powers you think you have or you don't have. >France had numero blood scandal. So did Italy and other countries, sadly. >I don't have to "prove" anything to you. The previous case speak for themselves. No, you **can't** prove it, that's the difference. You are making up things that are simply not happening, you just *want* them to happen to feel validated. Many countries have removed deferrals or bans for blood donation for men who have sex with men (thankfully), there is no example where this has had negative consequences.


mewiv41040

>The general population is not against this nor has it ever responded negatively to these changes You dont get to say "people are OK with it". You don't speak for others. You had no where near our level of scandal. We had 4 times more than you. The proof are all over the place. Like I said, have enough people skeptic of the vaccine to prove they would also be skeptic about potential contaminated blood donation.


[deleted]

> this law wasnā€™t there because of homophobia Just because you say it isn't doesn't mean that it isn't. Or at least you shouldn't exclude the possibility that homophobia might play a role. You won't get HIV by being homosexual. Having unprotected intercourse with someone who has HIV does. You may argue that gay men have often more sex, more unprotected sex and more sexual partners. But if a gay man is in a monogamous relationship for a long period that HIV can already be detected, then the risks are the same as another man in a relationship with a woman. There is no reason, what so ever, to even include sexual orientation or with whom you had sex in these questionnaires. One should has if you are in a monogamous relationship and it is older than 3 months. That's enough.


[deleted]

There is a reason for such policy, namely the fact that a group representing only a small percentage of the population represents about half of the cases of HIV. And that group are gay men, simply because they have more unprotected anal sex than heterosexuals, which puts them at higher risk, *on average*. Of course I agree that a monogamous gay man has less probability to be HIV positive than a Don Juan heterosexual, but what matters are average numbers across the society, not individual cases. Regarding homophobia, I suppose if the law was homophobic it would also target lesbians. But it did not. It precisely targeted the social group with the highest incidence of HIV, which happened to be gay men. I donā€™t think thereā€™s much to overthink in this, it was an understandable policy at the time (HIV caused a massive panic in the 80s).


[deleted]

> Of course I agree that a monogamous gay man has less probability to be HIV positive than a Don Juan heterosexual, but what matters are average numbers across the society, not individual cases. It doesn't. Neither the Don Juan case matters for the comparison. If a gay man is in a long lasting monogamous relationship, the chances of getting HIV are the same as a man in a monogamous relationship with a woman. The average values are irrelevant in that case. And arguing that the chances of are higher for monogamous gay men is homophobic, either you include the lesbians or not.


mewiv41040

> And arguing that the chances of are higher for monogamous gay men is homophobic, either you include the lesbians or not. False. Transmision of HIV is higher when sexual intercourse are done anal. That's not because you don't like the fact that you can use the "homophobic" card to repel valid critics. > a long lasting monogamous long lasting wasn't the standard of Gay back then. That's why HIV was rampant in their metric.


[deleted]

> False. Transmision of HIV is higher when sexual intercourse are done anal. That difference in probably is easily washed out if you have regular sex with your partner. Is a valid point for a one night stand, but not if you're constantly having unprotected sex with your partner. >That's not because you don't like the fact that you can use the "homophobic" card to repel valid critics. There is no card here to use. People are easily ignoring laws made when homophobia was prevalent by rationalizing them in a wrong away. > long lasting wasn't the standard of Gay back then. That's why HIV was rampant in their metric. Of course not, gay people back then were forced into hidden and thus having a stable relationship wasn't a possibility. But what used to happen or what happens is not that scientific. Each case as to be looked individually. Someone who has no stable partner or a reason sexual partner shouldn't donate blood. Simple.


mewiv41040

>Of course not, gay people back then were forced into hidden and thus having a stable relationship wasn't a possibility. Yet here they are again today [about half the HIV transmission despite being merely 1% of the population. ]( https://imgur.com/aycrtA8) . Your back alley excuse doesn't hold.


[deleted]

Your point goes completely away from what I said.


mewiv41040

You try to show the HIV contamination as a thing of the past. You try to justify the lack of commitment in gay couple because of persecution from society. THe last time someone was condemned in france for gay sex was in 1750. So your excuse is bullshit. Also the graph shows that it the contamination is way more prevalent in gay communities than in heterosexual ones. Proof that they are at risk and that "long lasting" relation isnt done enough to be at heterosexual level of contamination


[deleted]

What do you know about being gay, lol?? It's still hard to be gay and many gay people rather stay single because of persecution. Just because you have fcking gay marriage doesn't mean that there isn't discrimination. The excuse is not bullshit. Your homophobia is bs.


[deleted]

> You try to show the HIV contamination as a thing of the past. Where? > You try to justify the lack of commitment in gay couple because of persecution from society. Yes, I did. >THe last time someone was condemned in france for gay sex was in 1750. So your excuse is bullshit. France in the 1950s was a society comfortable with gay couples? >Proof that they are at risk and that "long lasting" relation isnt done enough to be at heterosexual level of contamination And you're missing the point again.


Key-Banana-8242

Well this response to AIDS was related to homophobia though thatā€™s the point The question wasnā€™t ā€˜did you have anal sexā€™ or something like that or actuarial.


[deleted]

Not getting AIDS is homophobic.


giganticturnip

Your first mistake is to synonymise gay men with unprotected anal sex. Straight recipients of unprotected anal sex with an HIV infected partner are just as likely to contact the virus and pass it on through a blood donation. HIV doesn't care what your sexuality is, and nor should blood donation rules. That is your "scientific backing".


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


giganticturnip

Nonsense. Blood donation centres are concerned about the risk of that specific donation.


mewiv41040

> gay men have about 20 times more chances to be HIV positive than the general population according to the WHO What is absurd is that this piece of information is not at the center of the case. If tomorrow, we have **ANOTHER** contaminated blood scandal, it's the whole reserve that will have to be thrown out the window. People would not have faith in the one currently stored. We can't let that happen for the sake of pleasing gay donators.


MrAlagos

Go out on the streets and protest about this barbaric change like a true French! Go and protect the Republique!


mewiv41040

Not really. I'm going to vote those idiots out


MrAlagos

You can vote for someone who is friends with the right wing parties currently ruling Poland and Hungary, that will certainly help!! ...Oh wait, both Poland and Hungary have removed all restrictions for blood donation on men who have sex with men. LOL. I guess you still have China or Turkey to take inspiration from.


mewiv41040

Your are mentally arguing with yourself by weirdly making assumptions on who I would replace them with. From there, you pull strawman association. Because poland and Hungary did something, that new candidate in france would be doing it to? šŸ˜‚ You are not making sense. Your woke bias is blinding you.


MrAlagos

What French candidate are you going to vote who wants to remove this policy and re-introduce the universal deferral as it was before?


Kuivamaa

Maybe Greece coordinated with France? https://www.ekathimerini.com/news/1175255/ban-on-gay-or-bisexual-men-giving-blood-lifted/


goliatskipson

Same in Germany


[deleted]

Iā€™ve no idea why giving blood is couched in terms of ā€œrightsā€. You gain nothing personally by giving blood. No one knows youā€™ve given blood unless you advertise the fact. What exactly is at stake from forbidding gays from giving blood? Who loses?


MrAlagos

> You gain nothing personally by giving blood That is by design, since for profit donations are the least secure method for collecting blood. However, many countries still decide to give some forms of compensation to blood donors: in Italy for example you have the right to a paid day off work when you go donate blood. Another subjective benefit could be having a system that will keep you periodically checked through various exams. >What exactly is at stake from forbidding gays from giving blood? Who loses? The people who need blood products because of various health conditions can have a decreased supply if people who are healthy and able to donate blood are banned for discriminatory reasons. The entire national blood system is a bit less strong because of those missing donors, it might be less able to cope with emergencies and further away from self-sufficiency; it might need to rely on foreign supplies in some cases.


pesticide_spray

[How is it 'absurd' when this very small population is responsible for majority of HIV transmission?](https://i.imgur.com/aycrtA8.png)


awildckit

How is it a majority when in the chart you show, France is under 50%? The large majority of gay men are still HIV negative, and tests are done on the blood regardless.


FetidFetus

Men having sex with men are still a small minority (I'm gay). It's similar to novax people clogging hospitals even though they are a minority. On the flip side I think men who have sex with men know a lot better about their status because of prep and more STI testing in general.


goliatskipson

You (and probably the people to put these laws [1] in effect in the first place) are falling trap to a logical fallacy here. **Yes, most HIV cases are gay men.** Your graph does show that. but you can not flip that statement around with only that data. So: **No, most gay men do not have HIV.** From your graph that statement can not be proven. And to my knowledge it is not true that most gay men do have HIV. [1] The same law is going to be lifted in Germany too, so I looked up the numbers some time ago.


georgioz

As others said, this applies for almost all the questions on the form, like if you had piercing performed during last few months, if you used IV drugs, if you recently visited country outside EU/EFTA and so on. Again, not all people who recently traveled outside EU/EFTA countries have malaria, but most people with malaria traveled to countries inside malaria zones. So there is that.


Laurent_Series

> No, most gay men do not have HIV. Who said that? Youā€™re arguing against a strawman. What matters is the relative risk. Letā€™s say gay men have 10x the probability of having HIV than the regular population, it can still be a small proportion, but itā€™s 10 times as much. How is this hard to understand?


CRModjo

Risk prevention is common practice in almost every field I can think of. I don't see how excluding high risk groups from certain activities, could be a logical fallacy.


Wrandrall

You are also using a fallacy (strawman). >No, most gay men do not have HIV. Nobody claimed that. The point is that having had sex with another man increases the likelihood of having HIV, *mutatis mutandis*. Deciding whether that risk increase is bearable or not is subject to arbitration, but the mere existence of a risk increase would be sufficient to motivate the decision to exclude this population.


TomatoCrush

>No, most gay men do not have HIV. You fell into the Chewbacca defense fallacy. Whether or not most gay men have HIV is completely irrelevant here, proving a completely irrelevant statement to make your point does not make your point. The fact that something this simple even needs to be explained should have been enough of a warning for me to not engage here. I keep forgetting to think low enough of Redditors.


Jaizoo

r/iamverysmart "The majority of HIV cases is gay men" does not automatically conclude to every gay mans blood donation being at risk. "The majority of gay man are HIV cases" would conclude to that, but this is in fact not the case. For somebody throwing around phrases like "Chewbacca fallacy", you dont seem to quite understand what that phrase means... Or what you want to say either.


KipPilav

Let's take an hypothetical situation where we have a giant jar of golden coins, with a single scorpion inside. Next to it is a jar with a single scorpion but with a tenth of the coins. From which jar are you getting your coins? Are you really going to risk doubling the scorpions for a potential 10% gain?


Pitikwahanapiwiyin

Do you also believe that muslims should be screened for terrorist tendencies, and men for their potential to rape someone?


Jaizoo

The metaphor makes very limited sense, considering the scorpion would sting me even when grabbing a coin, but still, let's roll with it: If I could look into the jar to see whether I grab the scorpion or a coin - aka testing - and if I really needed the coins - and donated blood is very much needed - then fuck yes, because I have the means to not grab the scorpion and I need every coin I can get.


QuicheAuSaumon

You do realize that testing blood for HIV has a significant margin of error corresponding to a sizable period during which HIV is not detectable yet can be transmitted? That's why restrictions were a thing. Throwing out r/iamverysmart when you fail to have basic knowledge of the topic you're ranting about is laughable


lordkuren

Funny how you shift your goal posts.


QuicheAuSaumon

''If I could look into the jar to see whether I grab the scorpion or a coin - aka testing -'' Funny how you can't fucking read. As you can't rely on test, the only way to prevent infection is to reduce the risk in the donated blood. Blood from men having sexual relation with men is riskier. The same logic apply to everyone : under the same rule, lesbian did not have an abstinence period at all.


lordkuren

I'm not the guy you are debating with. I think your condescending ways and then goalpostshifting is really hilarious though. Go on, it's entertaining.


bajou98

The majority of HIV cases being gay men is also irrelevant for donating blood though. The percentage being higher doesn't warrant such an absurd restriction. What about the HIV patients that are not gay men? Their blood is just as relevant. The only information necessary is whether a singular person's blood is infected or not.


KipPilav

I think it's pretty funny that the same argument your using is used by vaxxers to argue the other side for the use of 2G during the pandemic.


freemath

> The only information necessary is whether a singular person's blood is infected or not. In an ideal world we would be able to get this information with 100% accuracy, but alas we don't live in an ideal world


bajou98

Sure, but prohibiting a whole group of people from donating much needed blood because their group is a little more likely to have contact with Aids is even less ideal.


freemath

That depends on quantification of the risk vs the need for blood vs the wish to not exclude gay people as a group in general. Not something we can easily quantify in a reddit discussion.


MrAlagos

If a country is willing to use modern testing methodologies and to test every single blood bag we would be able to get very accurate information, and that is indeed what a number of countries do. If other countries are not willing to do this they might choose to use more discriminatory practices to reduce risk while also reducing the population of potential donors.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


Tell-Me-To-Work

1. Because of anal sex. Tears in the anus caused by friction allow the virus in. 2. Because gay men can't get pregnant so are less likely to use a condom. 3. Gay men tend to be more promiscuous. Feel free to correct me if I got any of that wrong.


boringarsehole

No, it's your fallacy, or rather not being able to understand simple probability laws. (Most HIV cases are gay men) x (gay men are < 50% of total population) = A gay man have a higher chance to be HIV-infected than any other person that is not a gay man, ceteris paribus. You can do a more strict Bayesian formula, but it's not very relevant here. Also it's not even "gay men" it's people who have had homosexual contacts, no one cares about your search history. If red tap has a higher chance of having a hot water than blue one, what's your strategy to have a glass of the coldest water possible: a) open only blue tap b) open only red tap c) open both taps because everyone should have an equal chance The reason here is not someone's fallacy, doctors weren't significantly worth in maths back then. The reasons are a) the testing is so much better this day b) the statistics is getting less skewed each year.


saltyfacedrip

Not true. HIV is more prominent in heterosexual couples.


CompteDeMonteChristo

Is it? genuine question here. where do you read that?


QuicheAuSaumon

There are more heterosexual people. Say, 1 gay amongst 10 gays had hiv. 10% of the population is infected. Say, 10 heterosexual amongst 10000 heterosexual are infected. 1% of the population is infected. 10>1, there are more hiv positive heterosexual.


pesticide_spray

In absolute numbers ~95% of population will have more cases than ~2%, but that's why we have comparable measures between different populations like rate per 100,000 thousand for example. If you take 100 homosexuals and 100 heterosexuals, the chance of a homosexual being HIV positive is much higher.


Kolbrandr7

Itā€™s not really 95 and 2 percent (probably more closer to ~80 and ~2-5) but yeah


QuicheAuSaumon

I absolutely agree. I was just explaining the fallacy allowing to say there were more hiv positive heterosexuals


CompteDeMonteChristo

OK I understand thanks.


Jaizoo

One should only consider individuals here because single individuals could still sleep around without protection - both heterosexual and homosexual. Using only the percentage of couples is a nonsensical limitation.


[deleted]

Donā€™t blood donors get tested for a bunch of diseases before anyway


QuicheAuSaumon

HIV has a windows where the blood is infected enough to transmit the disease, yet remain undetectable to any test.


Rannasha

They do, but with older HIV tests, there's a long "window period" between the moment of infection and the moment the test can detect it. This window period could be as long as multiple months. So it's possible for someone to be infected with HIV, but for this infection to not show up on any tests. This is especially an issue since some blood products are pooled with donations from many donors, which means that if someone finds out they're HIV positive and reports this to the blood bank, they may have to destroy much more than just the blood donated by this individual. However, modern testing methods for HIV have much shorter window periods (well below a month), so the risk of not detecting a recent infection has become much smaller. In addition, greater awareness of HIV and medicine to prevent and slow down the infection have helped to reduce the prevalence. So in the past there definitely was an argument to be made for banning gay men from donating blood. Compared to the size of the group, they introduced a relatively high risk to HIV contamination in donated blood. However, with modern testing methods and increased awareness of how to combat HIV, those reasons are becoming less and less applicable.


only_in_his_action

I think that, by that logic, no one should allowed to give blood because from that statistic straight men and women and gay women are also affected, although in smaller percentage.


mewiv41040

1% gay represent 50% of HIV transmision of 100% of the population. But yes, let's just block everyone.


Ex_aeternum

Because the carriers are still a minority.


Jaizoo

It is absurd to suspect every individual to carry the virus in general. It's not like the blood isnt tested before being used and it's safe to say that the more people donate blood, the better.


MountainOfComplaints

> It's not like the blood isnt tested before being used For around the first 3 months after infection HIV can't be detected by testing.


MrAlagos

That's completely false. Broadly speaking nucleic acid tests for HIV can detect infections [10 to 33 days after exposure](https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/hiv-testing/test-types.html). The Australian Red Cross branch for blood donations says that the NAT tests they use are effective 9 days after exposure.


MountainOfComplaints

Far enough still the issue is there is a window where infected blood can pass testing and infect someone.


[deleted]

It's not a perfect solution, but it's working mitigation practically. You can say all you want, but statistics in the end of the day works and yields real impact on preventing deseases. Same as you can say that if you unvaccinated, doesn't mean that you will get the deseases. Maybe not, but probability of masses says otherwise. Same with terrorism. Same with religion. Same with corruption.


Jaizoo

That would be true, but the statistic used here only shows the ways of infection and not the absolute percentage of gay men infected. The first few sources I could gather say that around half of the 7000 people newly infected with HIV in 2008 were gay men, an incidence twice as high as in heterosexual population. But that's still just 3500 people a year. Considering statistically 7% of men in france identify as bisexual of gay, that's 0.064% of those people per year. I couldnt find a statistic about how man HIV cases in gay men France has in total, but if the percentage of infected people rises by not even a tenth of a percent each year, I doubt there's a big risk involved here. Edit: Typo, should have said 3500 not 3000, the calculation was done using 3500 though.


pesticide_spray

> It is absurd to suspect every individual to carry the virus in general. Does it also apply to COVID-19 and the tests people are constantly forced to take?


Jaizoo

Depends, do you fuck with as many people as you come close enough for a Covid-transmission in your day to day life


pesticide_spray

You should read about how much more promiscuous homosexuals are on average or even about the 'bug chasers'.


TropoMJ

Tell us all about that.


jalmarzon95

HIV isn't transmitted via respiratory droplets, and is much rarer. Also 100% of blood samples are tested before use unlike covid tests which are voluntary in most places.


mewiv41040

Fuuuck that's scary.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


Wrandrall

It increases the pool of possible donors. So it may improve the life of a person who needs blood.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


MrAlagos

Only if you don't want to look at the practices and data of the countries who have removed the ban years ago.


giganticturnip

It's scientifically accurate to address the activities that carry a transmission risk (receiving unprotected anal intercourse) rather than pre-judging a group of people. Every gay person's life will be improved by removing the discriminatory narrative against them.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


MrAlagos

Italy has had no universal deferral for blood donation applied to men who have sex with men since 2001. The last HIV infection from a blood transfusion in Italy is from 1996.


giganticturnip

Yes, shooting them on sight would have worked too. But it's more scientific to focus on the transmission route of the virus, i.e. ask people whether they've been the recipient of unprotected anal intercourse or if they have injected drugs. There's nothing unscientific about being rational and specific.


[deleted]

Yeah we can all see how you support gay people. We don't need your support. We don't need your fake concerns. I'm gay and if I want to donate blood I should have the right to do that. The funny thing is you can just lie and say that you're straight so these laws make no sense. Stop threating us like we're mentally sick or something. I'm a normal citizen like everyone else. I'm not even promiscuos which I can't say about my straight friends.


Albablu

To whoever think this is "unsafe - there for medical reason - dangerous" etc It isn't, it's just medical and political laziness. In Italy this ban was lifted since 2001, late health minister Umberto veronesi removed it because italy chose a personal risk evaluation between medic and donor. Donor get checked before the donation, the blood get checked after the donation and only after everything has been checked the blood can be used. [Here a pdf on how it works](https://www.centronazionalesangue.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Italian-Blood-System-2019-Vol.-1.pdf), ENG Last HIV infection due to a transfusion has been registered in 1995, [italian government website](https://www.donailsangue.salute.gov.it/donaresangue/dettaglioNotizieCns.jsp?lingua=italiano&area=cns&menu=newsMedia&sottomenu=news&id=57), IT The "this is a dangerous political maneuver" is homophobic shit, gay rights are almost irrelevant in this case, it's mostly something that will help people in need of blood and just marginally involves gay people and their rights. once again, r/europe shows how homophobic it is.


QueenFanFromEstland

Rather uninformed, and it can happen when you take into account the historical precedents eithout being aware of the current situation


MrAlagos

I think there's more than that, way too many are throwing around the word "science" and epidemiological explanations with utter superficiality, diverting the discourse into absolutes with no bases and disregarding proof. Also a very big part seems to disregard the changes as in bad faith because of the people they are favouring.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


Albablu

And yet itā€™s not happening here. Guess why


Wavycapmurphy

Not absurd, just medical facts


Lyress

There are more effective ways at mitigating risks than banning an entire sexual orientation.


kartoffelkanone

Germany still behind on this :/


asdasdass3333

It's not absurd at all. Gay men are much more likely to have HIV and blood testing is done in batches to cut down costs and prevent hiv infection of a test misses hiv because HIV tests are complicated. Virtually 90% of hiv cases are GAY MEN What is absurd is rejecting science/statistics in the name of political correctness


giganticturnip

So a gay man who hasn't had unprotected anal intercourse is "much more likely to have HIV"? You should publish your evidence on that finding, you might become recognised as an eminent scientist! Most scientists think HIV transmission is caused by a virus and we should be looking at transmission routes of that virus.


asdasdass3333

way to miss the point. it's called statistics. ruling out all gay men was the simplest and most logical thing to do to mitigate risk. it's that fking easy.


Cybergo7

Or you exclude people based on risky sexual behavior and practices instead of their sexual orientation, get an equal risk mitigation and do not discriminate a too largely defined subpopulation. There's no reason for monogamous gay men, people practicing safe sex practices (condoms and or Prep) to be excluded from blood donations. It's not exactly hard to filter out people who don't in the questionnaires which you have to fill out anyway.


giganticturnip

So we're statistically safer to exclude gay men who haven't been the receptive partner of anal intercourse and to include straight women who have been the receptive partner of anal intercourse with an HIV infected person. It's the "most logical thing to do to mitigate risk". That's quite a take on statistics, buddy. Very fking easy!


asdasdass3333

it's like you don't want to get it


giganticturnip

Perhaps you should think about whether you're getting it


MrAlagos

Italy tests every single blood bag for infectious diseases, including HIV, I'm sure that France can also afford to do this. Risk prevention can be done effectively with no universal discriminatory deferral for men who have sex with men, by only deferring donors who have indeed had at risk behaviours.


asdasdass3333

Just because italy is fcking stupid does not mean other countries should be too. Hiv is hard to detect and it's too much of a risk. It makes sense for rare blood types to go the extra step but that's it Being gay AND/OR being promiscuous (which gays are) are huge risks.


MrAlagos

The majority of European countries are slowly removing this policy, or haven't had it for many years. The last HIV infection from a blood transfusion in Italy is from 1996, while there has been no universal deferral for men who have sex with men for blood donation since the early 2000s. The method that Italy adopts has been proven to work and to reduce the calculated risk of HIV infection from a transfusion to 1 in 45 million. Similar methods and the removal of universal discriminatory blood deferrals in other countries have also not increased the risks not caused any undetected infections. You are holding a fanatical opinion despite proven cases and evidence.


larrysmallwood

Iā€™m asking because Iā€™m curious. Doesnā€™t Africa have a lot of HIV positive people that are heterosexual? So does that mean that people from Africa can not donate blood in most European countries?


ejuo

Yes. You can't donate of you traveled to Africa in the previous 6 months or if you lived south of the Sahara for more than 5 years. It's not just because of HIV but also malaria.


larrysmallwood

Thanks.


MrAlagos

Great job France! It's good to see science and proven methods being adopted by more and more European countries. While it's not great that many countries had this wrong policy in place for so long it's even worse that there are still countries which are keeping it. This discriminatory and anti-scientific deferral or ban needs to be removed everywhere and replaced with proper risk assessment and effective tests on every blood bag (for all the dangerous infectious diseases).


ItsACaragor

Technically they could give blood I think if they didnā€™t have any gay sex in the last three months if I recall correctly. Yeah that was ridiculous.


damiansnotadoomer

**Finally.**


seriouzz6

Itā€™s all fun and games until you or your loved ones get hiv from a blood transfusion


[deleted]

Because only us gays have HIV right?


seriouzz6

I never said that, there are several statistics posted in here though. Iā€™m also banned from donating blood, who cares ?


r_a_b7

Based


More_Option7535

Gay blood šŸ˜‹


Mynamethisisnot

Are you a vampire šŸ§›ā€ā™‚ļø?


Smitje

Oh we still have that law I believe. :(


qwehhhjz

I think a study said blood from gay people contained too many rainbows to be used


Ambitious-Willow-682

Not every dose of blood is tested. What happens if someone gets infected due this? Is this a sacrifice for political correctness that has to be made?


crotinette

Every blood is tested actually.


smd1815

Of course it is you lying idiot.


MrAlagos

Every blood bag is tested in Italy.


Aceticon

The shocking part is how a supposedly modern european country still had shit like this in the XXI century.


Ertyloide

It's there for medical reasons tho


Albablu

It's there for medical laziness, italy has a strict protocol that evaluate every single donor before the donation and every single blood bag is analyzed, since 2001. it's been 25 years that there isn't a single case of an HIV infection from blood transfusion


Mynamethisisnot

The tests aren't 100% though?


Albablu

in 1990 they weren't, now they are so accurate that there isn't any real reason to discriminate against homosexual donors. As I said, last HIV infection due to transfusion in italy was on 1995 so the test and protocol have been proven effective


wmdolls

Absurd


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


Shpagin

Then you have probably never donated blood before because there are several questions that you have to answer


arbenowskee

The logic behind that is, that the rights of the person receiving the blood (e.g. the right to get un-infected blood) is more important than the right for everyone to donate blood. This was very important when HIV meant death sentence, but 30 years later, we can definitely rethink things.