3 ms·
Sounds like something you should test rather that just rely on heuristics
by ClumsyPilot 3mo ago
Sounds like something you should test rather that just rely on heuristics
- lotsofpulp 3mo agoSounds like something you should evaluate with a cost/benefit analysis, including the false negative and false positive rates.
- tristor 3mo agoHeuristics work, why would you not rely on heuristics?
- jolmg 3mo agoGenerally, because they're discriminatory. It's like how racial profiling in law enforcement can be a heuristic that can work. Though, in the case of blood donations, it seems that tests aren't accurate enough to be able to rely solely on them. Also, being discriminated against on being able to donate blood is not as big of a deal. Though in some places with public health systems, stuff like getting a surgery may somewhat depend on you and family/friends donating a certain amount of blood.
- Ferret7446 3mo agoReality is discriminatory. Discriminating between blood containing disease vs blood that doesn't is, quite literally, discriminatory.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- otherme123 3mo agoTests cost money. They have blood enough to allow them to discriminate. If they were lacking, they will be less picky: in a catastrophic event they call for blood donors and they rely on tests, risking a detection window. But under normal conditions, letting only the best candidates donate is the most efficient way.
- maerF0x0 3mo agoshould test? As in test the blood? Or test the hypothesis? if the latter I'm not sure it's enough of a stretch to say unprotected, hi-risk, promiscuity is a risk factor for blood borne illness like HIV? (Such that we need to research it separately)