Red Cross Declares Blood Supply Shortage In USA & Canada

[RAMROD 117,048]

A blood supply shortage in the US has reached a "crisis" level, according to the American Red Cross, which says it is the second time in its 150-year history that levels have been this low.

Factors including wildfires and extreme heat have combined to create the current situation, Dr Courtney Lawrence, who works with the American Red Cross, told the BBC.

Supply levels dropped by a quarter just last month. The crisis has struck during summer, when the amount of blood needed by hospitals typically increases.

That is because of an increased number of car accidents and more people spending time outdoors, resulting in more injuries that require blood transfusions, Lawrence said.

The American Red Cross - which is the largest single blood supplier in the US, providing about 40% - is currently distributing about 3,500 more units than normal during this time of year, according to Lawrence, who added that the organisation is having to dip "very, very low into our blood inventory".

"We don't have the ability to stockpile blood super far in advance because blood does have a finite shelf life, it does expire," she said.

Donated blood has to be used within 42 days because blood cells degrade over time.

Supplies of every blood type are currently needed, but especially O positive, which is considered a universal blood type and can be given to people in an emergency when theirs is unknown.

Lawrence said hospitals they have spoken to believe the crisis could have some impact on routine operations and some have considered "whether they may need to divert patients to other trauma centres if they cannot keep enough blood on their shelves to be able to support emergencies".

She stressed that a combination of factors led to an existing shortage worsening to crisis level.

Meanwhile, blood supplies in Canada have also declined, by nearly 20% since the start of June, according to Canadian Blood Services.

"Over the past six weeks, appointments have fallen short by 1,500 to 2,500 each week, requiring a draw on existing inventory to meet patient needs," it said in a statement.

Unlike in the US, the reason for the drop in donations there is unknown.

 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c74gze89783o

[Ziggy 14,039]

Alright let’s get to baking those cookies, we got some blood to give

[Future Lovers 7,558]

Reminder because I have come across a lot of gay people who don't donate because they think they still aren't allowed to: gay and bisexual people are indeed allowed to give blood as of 2023!

It used to be that they couldn't, but that's been reversed. Blood donation is now based upon individual sexual habits regardless of orientation and homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual people are held to the same sexual standards. 

You can check if you're eligible according to the health screening guidelines here: https://www.redcrossblood.org/donate-blood/how-to-donate/eligibility-requirements/lgbtq-donors.html

[Concertaholic 6,579]

O negative is actually the universal blood type which I am. Unfortunately our backwards blood banks stigmatize men who have sex with men and since I had syphillis when I was younger (which was easily cured with a standard course of antibiotics) I’m completely banned from ever donating blood again. My blood is so vital but if the straight, puritanical powers at be don’t want my blood then f ‘em 

[iAmToton 190]

In Spain (where I’m from), hospitals reimburse the Red Cross for the processing costs, such as collection, component separation, infectious disease testing, and storage. These costs are audited, and there is no financial profit involved in the transaction. Hospitals simply cover the operating expenses, while the Red Cross provides the blood units needed as part of a mutually beneficial system within our public healthcare service. Patients don’t pay for blood transfusions either.

In the United States, however, there is a fixed price per unit of blood charged by the Red Cross, and, as far as I know, that pricing is not subject to the same kind of audited cost recovery model. Likewise, there is no audit of the price hospitals charge patients per unit of blood, nor whether the hospital makes a profit from reselling that blood. Because of that, people can’t really be sure how the price is determined, and personally, I wouldn’t be comfortable trusting that system either.

Edited 18 hours ago by iAmToton

[gagzus 23,119]

4 hours ago, Future Lovers said:

Reminder because I have come across a lot of gay people who don't donate because they think they still aren't allowed to: gay and bisexual people are indeed allowed to give blood as of 2023!

It used to be that they couldn't, but that's been reversed. Blood donation is now based upon individual sexual habits regardless of orientation and homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual people are held to the same sexual standards. 

You can check if you're eligible according to the health screening guidelines here: https://www.redcrossblood.org/donate-blood/how-to-donate/eligibility-requirements/lgbtq-donors.html

You basically still cannot donate if you’ve had an*l sex within the past 3 months, and idk many gay men who haven’t had sex in more than 3 months. You also cannot do it if you’re on PrEP or PEP. And if you’re on injectable options you cannot donate the for 2 years.

You can only do it if you’re not on them and have only had sex with the same person for three months. Basically the restrictions are still homophobic qnd based on presumption of promiscuity.

Edited 18 hours ago by gagzus

[Bronco 25,117]

2 minutes ago, gagzus said:

You basically still cannot donate if you’ve had an*l sex within the past 3 months, and idk many gay men who haven’t had sex in more than 3 months. 

I know loads
Fear for us singletons

I'm practically virginal again 

[gagzus 23,119]

Just now, Bronco said:

I know loads
Fear for us singletons

I'm practically virginal again 

Get to the Red Cross then girlie pop, add an extra pint for my sp*nk filled blood sis

[NUTELLA 26,699]

1 minute ago, gagzus said:

my sp*nk filled blood

[Bronco 25,117]

Just now, gagzus said:

Get to the Red Cross then girlie pop, add an extra pint for my sp*nk filled blood sis

I can't donate due to anemia issues lol 
And I have 0-

[Plastic Flower 5,586]

It hurts me that I can’t donate anymore. 

[gagzus 23,119]

5 minutes ago, NUTELLA said:

She jerked off into every bottle with her girl cawk I fear

[Future Lovers 7,558]

7 hours ago, gagzus said:

You basically still cannot donate if you’ve had an*l sex within the past 3 months, and idk many gay men who haven’t had sex in more than 3 months. You also cannot do it if you’re on PrEP or PEP. And if you’re on injectable options you cannot donate the for 2 years.

You can only do it if you’re not on them and have only had sex with the same person for three months. Basically the restrictions are still homophobic qnd based on presumption of promiscuity.

That's not entirely correct, and is quite a narrow way of looking at the guidelines. 

You can absolutely donate blood if you've had an*l sex within the last three months provided it was with a monogamous partner. You need only do the three month wait if it was with a new partner or multiple partners. 

As for PrEP, you're correct that you can't donate, but that's not unique to PrEP, it is true for all blood altering medication as PrEP, along with certain other medications, suppresses viral replication meaning that it can disguise HIV  on a blood test, but will not remove it from a large blood donation.

In other words, it is possible for someone to have HIV and the medication to have suppressed it's virality enough that it wouldn't show up in a vial of blood in a blood test, but would be present if you were to take a pint or more of blood in a donation. 

They will ask the same questions of women and heterosexual men, and there is a strong chance they will get a temporary deferral if they have had unprotected vaginal sex with a non-monogamous partner. 

The reason unprotected **** sex with a non-monogamous partner within three months is an automatic temporary defferal is not homophobc (as again, if a straight person has had had unprotected **** sex with a non-monogamous they too will get deferred), it is biological.

It is not homophonic to acknowledge that there are inherent risks associated with unprotected **** sex that are not associated with unprotected vaginal or oral sex. The human rectum is far more favorable to sexually transmitted virus than any other part of the body we use for sex. The tissue is thin and easily tearable, the rectum is non-self lubricating, and it offers direct, viral entry to the bloodstream meaning that your body has a less likely chance of being able to fight off a virus than it does should it have entered somewhere else. 

It has to be acknowledged that **** sex is the primary method for homosexual men, but it also has to be acknowledged that is is NOT  disqualifier A gay man who has unprotected **** sex absolutely can donate blood provided they wait three months from their last unprotected, non-monogamous encounter. 

Statistically speaking, according to the CDC, gay men who are in relationships perform sexual acts more often (on average around 102/year) than gay men who are not (on average around 46/year), so there is an understanding within the medical community that non-monogamous or single gay men are on average having less sex. Also, less than half (though close; around 45%) of gay men in the US are on PrEP so that disqualifier does not impact the majority of gay men in the country. 

I would agree with you that it's homophonic if the same restrictions were not applied to heterosexual people, but they are. None of these disqualifies or deferrals is  unique to gay men. It is also not homophobic to deny the basic realities of the risks posed by **** sex. 

Some other reasons one cannot donate blood are recent illness, recent tattoos or piercings, certain medications, certain chronic illnesses, and low iron. Anyone who's ever had blood cancer or hepatitis or HIV understandably cannot ever donate, which I find to be a pretty inarugable restriction. 

Back as recently as 2013, most gay men could not donate period point blank no matter what. The fact that the restrictions that a gay man may have have not only been universalized, but ALSO are not 100% no gos (the three month waiting period OR monogamous partner guidelines both make it doable for a gay men to donate) are big steps forward. 

Guidelines do not assume promiscuity, the guidelines are what they are to ensure absolute safety, which is completely necessary when collecting blood and I hope any and all gay men who wish to donate follow the guidelines are honest in their pre-collection screening. 

Personally, I donate blood once a year around Christimastime, and it's incredibly fulfilling. 

[AsleepOnTheCeiling 6,965]

1 hour ago, Future Lovers said:

That's not entirely correct, and is quite a narrow way of looking at the guidelines. 

You can absolutely donate blood if you've had an*l sex within the last three months provided it was with a monogamous partner. You need only do the three month wait if it was with a new partner or multiple partners. 

As for PrEP, you're correct that you can't donate, but that's not unique to PrEP, it is true for all blood altering medication as PrEP, along with certain other medications, suppresses viral replication meaning that it can disguise HIV  on a blood test, but will not remove it from a large blood donation.

In other words, it is possible for someone to have HIV and the medication to have suppressed it's virality enough that it wouldn't show up in a vial of blood in a blood test, but would be present if you were to take a pint or more of blood in a donation. 

They will ask the same questions of women and heterosexual men, and there is a strong chance they will get a temporary deferral if they have had unprotected vaginal sex with a non-monogamous partner. 

The reason unprotected **** sex with a non-monogamous partner within three months is an automatic temporary defferal is not homophobc (as again, if a straight person has had had unprotected **** sex with a non-monogamous they too will get deferred), it is biological.

It is not homophonic to acknowledge that there are inherent risks associated with unprotected **** sex that are not associated with unprotected vaginal or oral sex. The human rectum is far more favorable to sexually transmitted virus than any other part of the body we use for sex. The tissue is thin and easily tearable, the rectum is non-self lubricating, and it offers direct, viral entry to the bloodstream meaning that your body has a less likely chance of being able to fight off a virus than it does should it have entered somewhere else. 

It has to be acknowledged that **** sex is the primary method for homosexual men, but it also has to be acknowledged that is is NOT  disqualifier A gay man who has unprotected **** sex absolutely can donate blood provided they wait three months from their last unprotected, non-monogamous encounter. 

Statistically speaking, according to the CDC, gay men who are in relationships perform sexual acts more often (on average around 102/year) than gay men who are not (on average around 46/year), so there is an understanding within the medical community that non-monogamous or single gay men are on average having less sex. Also, less than half (though close; around 45%) of gay men in the US are on PrEP so that disqualifier does not impact the majority of gay men in the country. 

I would agree with you that it's homophonic if the same restrictions were not applied to heterosexual people, but they are. None of these disqualifies or deferrals is  unique to gay men. It is also not homophobic to deny the basic realities of the risks posed by **** sex. 

Some other reasons one cannot donate blood are recent illness, recent tattoos or piercings, certain medications, certain chronic illnesses, and low iron. Anyone who's ever had blood cancer or hepatitis or HIV understandably cannot ever donate, which I find to be a pretty inarugable restriction. 

Back as recently as 2013, most gay men could not donate period point blank no matter what. The fact that the restrictions that a gay man may have have not only been universalized, but ALSO are not 100% no gos (the three month waiting period OR monogamous partner guidelines both make it doable for a gay men to donate) are big steps forward. 

Guidelines do not assume promiscuity, the guidelines are what they are to ensure absolute safety, which is completely necessary when collecting blood and I hope any and all gay men who wish to donate follow the guidelines are honest in their pre-collection screening. 

Personally, I donate blood once a year around Christimastime, and it's incredibly fulfilling. 

I'm shocked that you didn't write in there that detection period from NAT was 5-10 days and that this should actually probably be the exclusionary period. Or that all donated blood is tested in various ways. Or that 40% of the straight population engages in **** sex. The rules still have a disparate impact.