• metaStatic@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    on one hand it is a higher risk

    on the other hand we’ve had the ability to screen those risks out since forever and using it as an excuse was always about discrimination.

    Meanwhile I was in the UK in the 80s so I’m off the list forever anyway

    • Wahots@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Not higher risk in this case! This should actually lower risk by raising the bar for everyone:

      The new regulation excludes individuals who have had protected or unprotected anal intercourse with a new sexual partner in the past four months, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

      This hedges against sexual tourism, with further restrictions on donors who have recently gotten tattoos or tick bites, which can be potential vectors for disease.

      This is good, as blood-borne pathogens are on the rise in different populations these days, and this will keep recipients safer.

    • adr1an@programming.devM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 days ago

      The risk is having a high frequency of partners and anal sex (passive or active) without condoms. That can very well be the case of an heterosexual male. A lucky one, by the way.