http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/to-keep-the-blood-supply-safe-screening-blood-is-more-important-than-banning-donors/

To Keep The Blood Supply Safe, Screening Blood Is More Important Than Banning Donors

Since the shooting Sunday at Orlando LGBT nightclub Pulse, American LGBT activists have pointed out that many members of the community targeted by the shooter are still not allowed to donate blood that could help save victims.

The ban has a long history. In 1983, after scientists understood how HIV was spreading but had no test to find it, the Food and Drug Administration instituted a deferment on blood donations from men who had had sex with men since 1977. That eventually became a lifetime ban. The rule was only scaled back last December, when the FDA issued a revision. Now, men who have sex with men can donate blood — but only if they haven’t had sexual contact with another man for a year before the donation. That, along with the other questions donors must answer, depends on people being honest, which has its faults. But the FDA has said that even with its shortcomings, the ban is important because men who have sex with men are the demographic with the highest prevalence of HIV in the U.S.

It would be easy to assume that the lifetime ban has been successful at keeping HIV out of the blood supply. Today, the National Institutes of Health say the risk of a recipient contracting HIV through a transfusion of tainted blood is 1 in 2 million. And even that assessment overstates the risk because it is based on statistical calculations. The actual risk, as measured by incidence, is much, much lower. More than 15 million pints of donated blood are transfused into Americans each year. The last time anyone is known to have contracted HIV from blood donation was in 2008.

But this success — which has been duplicated in Canada — has little to do with donor bans and almost everything to do with blood screening, experts told me. Since 1985, every drop of donated blood has been tested for HIV. As the testing technology has improved, the incidence of transfusion-acquired HIV has plummeted, a fact that bolsters the argument of critics, who say it’s time to end a ban on blood donation that isn’t backed by the evidence.
===
More in Link

dv said:

To Keep The Blood Supply Safe, Screening Blood Is More Important Than Banning Donors

The ban has a long history. In 1983, after scientists understood how HIV was spreading but had no test to find it, the Food and Drug Administration instituted a deferment on blood donations from men who had had sex with men since 1977. That eventually became a lifetime ban.

I’m still banned from donating blood. But not because of HIV.

I’m banned because I lived in Britain for 13 months in 1988.

mollwollfumble said:

I’m banned because I lived in Britain for 13 months in 1988.

That would have been difficult.

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

To Keep The Blood Supply Safe, Screening Blood Is More Important Than Banning Donors

The ban has a long history. In 1983, after scientists understood how HIV was spreading but had no test to find it, the Food and Drug Administration instituted a deferment on blood donations from men who had had sex with men since 1977. That eventually became a lifetime ban.

I’m still banned from donating blood. But not because of HIV.

I’m banned because I lived in Britain for 13 months in 1988.

Blue blood?

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’m banned because I lived in Britain for 13 months in 1988.

That would have been difficult.

indeed. No wonder they banned his blood.

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’m banned because I lived in Britain for 13 months in 1988.

That would have been difficult.

A bakers year.

mollwollfumble said:

I’m still banned from donating blood. But not because of HIV.

I’m banned because I lived in Britain for 13 months in 1988.

BSE?

btm said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’m still banned from donating blood. But not because of HIV.

I’m banned because I lived in Britain for 13 months in 1988.

BSE?

Also, my calendar says there were only 12 months in 1988.

You need to update to one of those modern calendars that let you decide how many months there should be in a year.

You probably need a spreadsheet…

btm said:

btm said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’m still banned from donating blood. But not because of HIV.

I’m banned because I lived in Britain for 13 months in 1988.

BSE?

Also, my calendar says there were only 12 months in 1988.

Apparently yours wasn’t printed in Britain.

Lousy Smarch weather

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’m banned because I lived in Britain for 13 months in 1988.

That would have been difficult.

Yes ;-)
Meant to say 1988-9.

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’m banned because I lived in Britain for 13 months in 1988.

That would have been difficult.

Yes ;-)
Meant to say 1988-9.

I’ve had/have malaria so I’m not welcome either.
I was told “your blood’s not much use to you let alone anyone else”