I never understood this one. If you’ve worried about donated blood containing HIV, shouldn’t you test it anyway before using it?
The tests are not 100 percent.
So if the test is 99%, then you get 100 infected blood donations from 10,000 donors.
Even one blood bag infected with HIV is a disaster.
The additional restrictions on risk groups cuts the risk of false negatives down immensely.
Risk groups typically are: people with often changing sex partners, drug users, prostitutes and their customers, men who have sex with men.
It’s all statistics, not discrimination.
The last time I wanted to donate blood I was rejected because I had three sexual partners over the last three months.
HIV is also not the only possible pathogen in blood donations. High risk groups are also at higher risk for other diseases.
it wasn’t science or tech that was the problem.
it was homophobia and the AIDs epidemic in the 90s.
It was science and technology that was the problem… in the 90’s and 00’s. The law didn’t keep up with testing abilities for whatever reason you want to blame (it was homophobia)
They do but iirc the tests may not be perfect in a recently infected person
Takes like 3 months or something before it shows up on tests.
There are tests that show within a month but just on a cost basis they’re probably using antibody testing.
Nice. My information was outdated then.
Thank you.
I guess that’s why the question at my blood bank has changed over the years from “Have you ever” to “In the last three months have you” (had sex with a man who has sex with men, or been paid for sex, or had an accidental needle stick, whatever).
