Canada imroves blood donation rule for men who have sex with men

[homomo 23,883]

59 minutes ago, Economy said:

So gay men having higher rates was just misinformation?

 

Edit: just read the full article in OP. Seems like half of new cases of HIV last year in Canada were indeed gay men

I looked it up, this is from Catie.ca (Canada’s main HIV information source)

 

According to 2016 HIV estimates, people with HIV in Canada include:

32,762 gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (gbMSM). This represents 51.9% of all people with HIV in Canada. The estimate includes 30,980 men whose HIV status was attributed to having sex with men and 1,782 men whose HIV status could be attributed to either having sex with men or injection drug use.

10,986 people who used injection drugs (IDU). This represents 17.4% of all people with HIV in Canada. The estimate includes 9,204 people whose HIV status was attributed to injection drug use and 1,782 men whose HIV status could be attributed to either having sex with men or injection drug use (please note that these 1,782 men are the same as those noted in the bullet point above).

20,543 people whose HIV status was attributed to heterosexual sex. This represents 32.6% of all people with HIV in Canada. Of these, 9,438 people (15% of all people with HIV) were from a country where HIV is endemic (primarily countries in sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean).

601 people whose HIV status could not be attributed to sex or injection drug use. This includes people who likely contracted HIV through blood transfusions or clotting factors, transmission from mother to child, or needle-stick injuries in the workplace. This represents less than 1% of all people with HIV in Canada.

6,055 Indigenous people. This represents 9.6% of all people with HIV in Canada.

14,520 females. This represents 23% of all people with HIV in Canada.

 

 

Basically 30% were heterosexuals. And considering the HIV rate for vaginal sex is approximately 1/1250 (on the receiving end) and 1/70 anally; then it’s safe to say that the heterosexual HIV statistics are basically on par with the homosexual HIV ones in Canada.

[Economy 52,854]

31 minutes ago, Interstellar said:

I looked it up, this is from Catie.ca (Canada’s main HIV information source)

 

According to 2016 HIV estimates, people with HIV in Canada include:

32,762 gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (gbMSM). This represents 51.9% of all people with HIV in Canada. The estimate includes 30,980 men whose HIV status was attributed to having sex with men and 1,782 men whose HIV status could be attributed to either having sex with men or injection drug use.

10,986 people who used injection drugs (IDU). This represents 17.4% of all people with HIV in Canada. The estimate includes 9,204 people whose HIV status was attributed to injection drug use and 1,782 men whose HIV status could be attributed to either having sex with men or injection drug use (please note that these 1,782 men are the same as those noted in the bullet point above).

20,543 people whose HIV status was attributed to heterosexual sex. This represents 32.6% of all people with HIV in Canada. Of these, 9,438 people (15% of all people with HIV) were from a country where HIV is endemic (primarily countries in sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean).

601 people whose HIV status could not be attributed to sex or injection drug use. This includes people who likely contracted HIV through blood transfusions or clotting factors, transmission from mother to child, or needle-stick injuries in the workplace. This represents less than 1% of all people with HIV in Canada.

6,055 Indigenous people. This represents 9.6% of all people with HIV in Canada.

14,520 females. This represents 23% of all people with HIV in Canada.

 

 

Basically 30% were heterosexuals. And considering the HIV rate for vaginal sex is approximately 1/1250 (on the receiving end) and 1/70 anally; then it’s safe to say that the heterosexual HIV statistics are basically on par with the homosexual HIV ones in Canada.

So... A much higher percentage of gay men still have HIV... I don't get what ur point is then

[homomo 23,883]

15 minutes ago, Economy said:

So... A much higher percentage of gay men still have HIV... I don't get what ur point is then

Much higher? 51.9% of HIV contractions are gay people. That’s basically 50/50 (or in this case (52/48) with heterosexuals. What aren’t you seeing here 

and considering the chances getting HIV are almost 20x greater from analsex than vgina sex.. the facts are literally in the numbers.

[Economy 52,854]

2 hours ago, Interstellar said:

Much higher? 51.9% of HIV contractions are gay people. That’s basically 50/50 (or in this case (52/48) with heterosexuals. What aren’t you seeing here 

and considering the chances getting HIV are almost 20x greater from analsex than vgina sex.. the facts are literally in the numbers.

I think your the one that's not seeing it. Gays are a much smaller percentage of the population than heterosexual so if a smaller group of ppl make up 52% of infected how much does it take to understand that it's a much higher percentage of that group then that are infected???

 

Also I don't see how **** vs vaginal sex is relevant here. As if patients who are infected during blood transfusions care how u had sex to get it

 

If anything your proving their point of gay sex being mor dangerous for this

[ctherainbow 3,162]

The thing is, as another user already stated, though queer people do have higher rates of HIV infection, they also have a much higher rate of testing than the general public.  So it would make much more sense for the question to be “did you get tested in the last 90 days”, not “do you have gay sex”.  The first question is practical, the second one doesn’t take into account the discrepancies in testing, and the blood gets tested anyway before it’s used, so all you’re doing is potentially not throwing out a few bags of unusable blood, at the cost of making an entire population feel like ****+turning away a large number of viable blood donors who could save lives.    

Edit:  I feel like I didn’t make my point as clearly as I could have, but because STD testing and safe sex are so much more encouraged within the queer community than outside of it, while HIV infections are highest in queer men, they also get tested and are more likely to know their status and how to stay HIV negative.  The real danger in blood donation is if blood is donated by someone who does not practice safe sex or doesn’t know their status, not someone who just has gay sex.  There’s a clear distinction, and it bothers me that governments choose to stay with the “we’ll exclude all of them simply because it’s more likely they’re infected, even though those who aren’t infected are more likely to know for sure that their status is negative” model.    

[Economy 52,854]

On 5/10/2019 at 10:40 PM, ctherainbow said:

The thing is, as another user already stated, though queer people do have higher rates of HIV infection, they also have a much higher rate of testing than the general public.  So it would make much more sense for the question to be “did you get tested in the last 90 days”, not “do you have gay sex”. The first question is practical, the second one doesn’t take into account the discrepancies in testing, and the blood gets tested anyway before it’s used, so all you’re doing is potentially not throwing out a few bags of unusable blood, at the cost of making an entire population feel like ****+turning away a large number of viable blood donors who could save lives.    

Edit:  I feel like I didn’t make my point as clearly as I could have, but because STD testing and safe sex are so much more encouraged within the queer community than outside of it, while HIV infections are highest in queer men, they also get tested and are more likely to know their status and how to stay HIV negative.  The real danger in blood donation is if blood is donated by someone who does not practice safe sex or doesn’t know their status, not someone who just has gay sex.  There’s a clear distinction, and it bothers me that governments choose to stay with the “we’ll exclude all of them simply because it’s more likely they’re infected, even though those who aren’t infected are more likely to know for sure that their status is negative” model.    

Agreed 100%

[Tyler1992 2,340]

I was actually just looking this up because I couldn't remember if it had changed but was disappointed it didn't. What a coincidence that it just changed! Yay I can donate!!!

[RoverLoader 1,254]

On ‎5‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 4:37 AM, Economy said:

That's what im saying. This rule was created to improve blood safety not because they felt like hating on gays

 

Not everything has to be homophobia

Please stop talking common sense! they will be tarring and feathering you next!

[Gabe 2,587]

3 months is still ridiculous imo, but much better than the start. 

[AJRocketMan 2,684]

As a gay man, I can see why that blood donation rule exists. You can get infected with HIV and still test negative less than six months after infection. It’s best to wait six months since you last had sex to get tested for HIV to know for sure if you are positive.

And worst of all is that you can still infect someone even if you test negative within that six month window. That’s really scary. And most new HIV infections are from young gay and bisexual men. 🤯

[Erotica 34,928]

On 5/16/2019 at 3:16 AM, AJRocketMan said:

As a gay man, I can see why that blood donation rule exists. You can get infected with HIV and still test negative less than six months after infection. It’s best to wait six months since you last had sex to get tested for HIV to know for sure if you are positive.

And worst of all is that you can still infect someone even if you test negative within that six month window. That’s really scary. And most new HIV infections are from young gay and bisexual men. 🤯

I get that, but it still doesn't make sense to target only one group of people with this rule. Even if it's less common among straight people they can have HIV too and it can still be undetected if the test is taken too early. 

So straight people who f*cks around can still donate blood as they wish, but gay people who live in committed relationships where both partners are negative must skip sex and wait. I'd say there still are some prejudice left, because that does not make sense.

[ladylinners 485]

On 5/10/2019 at 9:16 PM, NewUsername said:

the thing is, the questions should be different, they should be like this:

- have you been tested the last X months

and

- are you in a serious, monogamous relationship?
 

In Sweden, I did get these questions. If I remember correctly the questions asks if you had sex with a random partner in the last three months. If so you are not allowed to donate blood. This goes for every single person. I can't remember the exact phrasing because I haven't donated blood in the past three years because I haven't been allowed due to low bloodcount and then living in Eastern Africa. But yeah, in Sweden there is the same rule for everyone. Slept with a new partner within the last 3 months and you are not allowed to give blood. Otherwise, as long as you are healthy donate away. 

[RemovedPerRequest1 124]

Personally I don’t think straight people can decide what’s homophobic and what’s not.

Definitely happy to see the change in Law, I might actually be able to give blood for first time in ten years.

[Henri Bardot 3,990]

On 5/16/2019 at 1:50 AM, Gabe said:

3 months is still ridiculous imo, but much better than the start. 

How the **** is it ridiculous tho? 

3 months it takes for HIV to be detected in blood, its not like you have unsafe sex and the next day you go test yourself. There's practically a point in between where it could remain undetectable thus dangerous for blood transfusions. 

I do agree that there should be a similar rule for straights, but I would still keep it more strict for gay men simply because of statistics. 

I would never risk it tbh. Donating blood is not to be taken lightly. 

[Miracle 14,068]

On 5/10/2019 at 10:24 PM, Economy said:

So... A much higher percentage of gay men still have HIV... I don't get what ur point is then

He just stated the reason why straight people is less likely to contract the virus.