Uplifting News
Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews, a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity and rage (e.g. schadenfreude) often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good.
Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!
view the rest of the comments
Gay men are statistically more likely to contract HIV. Of course, it would be horribly irresponsible and negligent not to test donated blood/plasma for HIV in the first place, so yeah, kinda dumb.
Of course, I get the statistics part but statistically, heterosexuals still get diseases. Less or more doesn't matter, it's a non zero chance so you have to check everything, no matter the sexuality of the person.
Statistics actually say the rule is dumb because statistically heterosexuals still have cooties too.
So if you gotta check anyway, why reject homosexual blood? Afraid that you might suddenly get the urge to play with a cucumber?
(And with "you" I mean whoever made those rules)
As I said, kinda dumb. There's likely some homophobia that went into the decision.
From a purely economic view, though, there might be some justification? If the blood is batch tested, e.g. 10 samples are mixed and tested, excluding a group more likely to have a disease would mean you'd throw out less blood (or have less testing to do if you then test individual samples). I don't know enough about blood donation testing to say if that's a valid argument or not, though.
Show me this statistical data.
https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/data-research/facts-stats/gay-bisexual-men.html
https://www.healthline.com/health/hiv-aids/hiv-risk-in-gay-men#transmission
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV_and_men_who_have_sex_with_men
https://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/2019-UNAIDS-data_en.pdf
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10159196/#pone.0281578.ref001
Consensus is that MSM are somewhere between 20-26 times more likely to contract HIV then other adult men. How much of that is biological and how much is cultural (e.g. in countries where homosexual sex is criminalized, access to healthcare and prophylactic medicines are likely less available) is definitely up for debate, and it of course does not mean that a straight man cannot contract HIV.
Fun fact, I’m O- and a gay man. I used to go down to those blood drives and flash my medical card. They were all very excited to take my blood, and then I said I was gay. The sad looks fuel me to this day.