You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #21: Actually, all stats would be what is termed "self-reported," and therefore suspect. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
nealmhughes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
21. Actually, all stats would be what is termed "self-reported," and therefore suspect.
Edited on Sun Dec-06-09 10:02 AM by nealmhughes
People lie. People have different ideas of what "gay" constitutes, even men who have sex sometimes or always with other men may or may not identify as "gay."

Any stat would be more or less either a guesstimation or an estimation using charts and SSPS or other stastical software.

By the way, there are those who are assuredly "gay" and are celibate and have always been celibate. They are obviously no risk for HIV if they have never been exposed to blood or body fluids in any form, yet they are gay. I am sure that the guidelines are for ensuring the safety of the public in the most general way and not for discrimination per se. The Red Cross does not care from what class of people they get their blood so long as it is within their guidelines.

By the way, people in the US who have spent X amount of time from a time frame of Y-Z months during a certain time period in the UK are not allowed to give blood in the US but can anywhere in the Eurozone. Make sense? No. A holdover from Madcow hysteria in the UK, even though we had our own here in the US.

I had platelets last week, by the way, and all I could think about was the class of people I saw hanging outside the "We buy blood" center the day before. They did not appear to be hard working folks out of work and looking to make a happy holiday for their family by a long shot. It looked like Meth Central. But I took 2 units with no quals, I figure my HIV is under control and cancer trumps HIV for a short life. I wish I could give blood, as I am
B Negative, but I cannot and I accept it. I am willing to face this "discrimination" of being gay and HIV positive and having lived in the UK and avoid internal Red Cross politics in which I have zero voice and rightly so long as they do not discriminate on who gets the blood!

In short, in public health, there is no easy answer: by and large the establishment errs on the side of safety for the public good. Discrimination? Perhaps, but one that is not aimed directly at one single class of people, rather at the likelihood of spreading disease due to people refusing to get tested and also people lying. Sadly, people are apt to do both; lie and refuse to get tested, and that is simply the way of all flesh.

Frankly, when it comes to HIV or gay issues, this one is low on my totem pole by far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -What percent of gay men are infected with HIV? dsc  Dec-06-09 08:35 AM   #0 
  - ?????  Djarun   Dec-06-09 08:37 AM   #1 
  - Children are easier to get rid of and aren't lethal...  Deja Q   Dec-06-09 08:42 AM   #3 
     - invalid comparison?  Djarun   Dec-06-09 08:49 AM   #11 
  - Thank you for your work on this dsc.  Starry Messenger   Dec-06-09 08:41 AM   #2 
  - I also agree, excellent post. Insightful and it raises genuine thought.  Deja Q   Dec-06-09 08:43 AM   #5 
  - what percentage of gay men refuse to use condoms?  crazyjoe   Dec-06-09 08:43 AM   #4 
  - I haven't a clue  dsc   Dec-06-09 08:45 AM   #6 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Dec-06-09 08:45 AM   #7 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Dec-06-09 08:47 AM   #8 
  - That's some seriously fucked up logic.  PeaceNikki   Dec-06-09 08:49 AM   #10 
  - Why should gays be required to be more "emotionally ready" than straights?  aquart   Dec-06-09 08:55 AM   #12 
  - Deleted sub-thread  Name removed   Dec-06-09 08:58 AM   #14 
  - Deleted sub-thread  Name removed   Dec-06-09 09:29 AM   #18 
  - And how many gay people in California didn't want to marry until they knew  Lyric   Dec-06-09 10:32 AM   #30 
  - Jesus - there's so much wrong with this.  donco6   Dec-06-09 10:43 AM   #32 
  - a couple of things  dsc   Dec-06-09 10:55 AM   #35 
  - A lot of people didn't get married because they didn't want  ruggerson   Dec-06-09 11:11 AM   #41 
  - Probabally the same percent that are infected with AIDS  niceypoo   Dec-06-09 11:47 AM   #50 
  - Sorry, but this is just dumb  HamdenRice   Dec-06-09 12:00 PM   #52 
  - I never said gay men refuse to use condoms, I'm saying that if you don't,  crazyjoe   Dec-07-09 11:26 AM   #56 
  - Probably the same as the amount of straight men who refuse to.  name not needed   Dec-07-09 05:56 PM   #61 
  - Probably not as many as straight men wth herpes  Mugweed   Dec-06-09 08:47 AM   #9 
  - Or as many straight men with children out of "wedlock"  Djarun   Dec-06-09 08:56 AM   #13 
     - Gay sex has yet to cause a single unintended pregnancy. n/t  Unvanguard   Dec-06-09 09:33 AM   #19 
     - thank goodness for that  Djarun   Dec-06-09 10:54 AM   #34 
     - Not really a valid comparison  JonQ   Dec-06-09 11:25 AM   #45 
  - The city estimate is almost certainly high. Urban populations are not representative.  Unvanguard   Dec-06-09 09:04 AM   #15 
  - The urban rates reported are somewhat greater than the rural rates, but the difference isn't huge:  struggle4progress   Dec-07-09 03:37 PM   #59 
     - No, the difference is probably larger than that.  Unvanguard   Dec-07-09 05:49 PM   #60 
        - Sorry, no cigar: look at the definitions in the report I linked:  struggle4progress   Dec-07-09 07:48 PM   #63 
           - Yes, I know that's true of the report you linked.  Unvanguard   Dec-07-09 09:24 PM   #65 
              - Here's the MMWR link for the five city study:  struggle4progress   Dec-07-09 09:40 PM   #66 
                 - But they are not taking a random sample of people in that area.  Unvanguard   Dec-07-09 09:46 PM   #67 
                    - Those may be perfectly cogent remarks. But public health policy will be based on  struggle4progress   Dec-07-09 10:09 PM   #68 
  - Even if the FDA allows gay men to donate blood it is likely to..  brewens   Dec-06-09 09:13 AM   #16 
  - some do out of not having a willing partner  dsc   Dec-06-09 09:14 AM   #17 
  - You've made a few serious statistical errors. Your numbers corrected correspond with the CDC  HamdenRice   Dec-06-09 09:44 AM   #20 
  - No it isn't as I mentioned in the other thread  dsc   Dec-06-09 10:04 AM   #22 
  - You have to stop thinking about it as a single study. It's based on "National Surveillance" studies  HamdenRice   Dec-06-09 10:10 AM   #25 
     - But the figures you quote do come from large cities only  muriel_volestrangler   Dec-06-09 10:20 AM   #26 
     - 1 in 10 sounds about right.  Unvanguard   Dec-06-09 10:23 AM   #28 
     - I don't see it as behavior -- its the issue of sexual community  HamdenRice   Dec-06-09 10:54 AM   #33 
        - No it isn't  dsc   Dec-06-09 10:56 AM   #36 
        - Your table shows infection rates in Baltimore and 4 other cities  muriel_volestrangler   Dec-06-09 11:22 AM   #44 
           - Here's what the CDC says about the overall national numbers  HamdenRice   Dec-06-09 11:33 AM   #48 
              - I'll reiterate: the 13% figure only comes if you use the 3.7% figure for 'had anal sex'  muriel_volestrangler   Dec-06-09 11:43 AM   #49 
                 - So let's say 10%  HamdenRice   Dec-06-09 11:58 AM   #51 
                    - No, let's say "1 in 12", since that's what the CDC says  muriel_volestrangler   Dec-06-09 01:48 PM   #53 
     - No it isn't  dsc   Dec-06-09 10:21 AM   #27 
     - You're confusing several things now  HamdenRice   Dec-06-09 11:01 AM   #38 
        - your table is totaly unlabled so we haven't a clue where it came from  dsc   Dec-06-09 05:31 PM   #54 
           - It came from the CDC fact sheet I linked to. Also the table itself has a footnote at the bottom  HamdenRice   Dec-07-09 05:29 AM   #55 
     - That doesn't answer the question, though.  Unvanguard   Dec-06-09 10:24 AM   #29 
     - The national surveillance study looks at a wide variety of sources  HamdenRice   Dec-06-09 10:57 AM   #37 
     - The NHBS wasn't designed to determine *prevalence* it was developed  pinto   Dec-06-09 11:26 AM   #46 
  - Which "CDC statistics" are you referring to?  Unvanguard   Dec-06-09 10:05 AM   #23 
  - +1.  Gormy Cuss   Dec-06-09 10:07 AM   #24 
  - I also applaud dsc for trying to look at this rationally and come up with a statistical viewpoint  HamdenRice   Dec-06-09 11:22 AM   #43 
  - The figures you cite are idiotic  ruggerson   Dec-06-09 11:04 AM   #39 
  - So the CDC is idiotic?  HamdenRice   Dec-06-09 11:10 AM   #40 
  - He noted gay men only. Add bisexual men to the math, and he's still basically correct.  Touchdown   Dec-07-09 03:27 PM   #58 
  - Actually, all stats would be what is termed "self-reported," and therefore suspect.  nealmhughes   Dec-06-09 10:01 AM   #21 
  - Estimating the rate of HIV infection by the numbers going for testing  RaleighNCDUer   Dec-06-09 10:42 AM   #31 
  - The whole "study"  TicketyBoo   Dec-06-09 11:15 AM   #42 
  - I would say this is next to impossible to figure out  JonQ   Dec-06-09 11:27 AM   #47 
  - ... During June 2004--April 2005, participants in five NHBS cities (Baltimore, Maryland; Los Angeles  struggle4progress   Dec-07-09 03:14 PM   #57 
     - The CDC estimates the number of MSM unaware of being HIV positive at 21%  muriel_volestrangler   Dec-07-09 06:07 PM   #62 
        - I'll certainly agree the CDC methodology (using later diagnoses to estimate currently undiagnosed  struggle4progress   Dec-07-09 08:45 PM   #64 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC