the blood rule

[Ed]

I think its time that if the bloodied player has to go off then the prick that made him bloody should get off too,bucks made that happen on this occasion.
But really the hysteria is way over the top on this blood rule.
In my day if there was any blood around i would wipe it on my own jumper,and on my arm or face.
made for a better look.
i played footy on grounds so hard and devoid of grass that every player had scratches and cuts,blood everywhere,nobody gave a shit.
the rule is absurd,how could anyone with aids play footy? they wouldnt have the energy.and even if they did the chance of infection is nil.

[junkboy75]

quote:

---

how could anyone with aids play footy? they wouldnt have the energy.and even if they did the chance of infection is nil

---

this is an incorrect statement. not every person with HIV develop into full blown aids, therefore they can still play sports, e.g. Magic Johnson. the chance of infection is not nil, it is extremely rare, but it is not zero. chances of infection with blood on the jumper is almost nil, as transmission occurs only if the blood enters your own blood stream through scratches or other similar open wounds. so the blood rule makes sense, BUT the blood on the jumper rule needs to be looked at. I believe they are relaxing this rule next year.

also, bear in mind that HIV is not the only blood borne virus that can be transmitted. many people with hepatitis don't even know they've got it.

australia avoided the aids epidemic that swept across america and elsewhere because we educated the public in time and implemented the necessary public health measures (I work in public health). this includes proper ways of treating open wounds in sports. I shuddered everytime during the world cup when the doctors would treat open wounds without wearing gloves.

"..we flew at them as a hawk to his prey, passed through them in the disordered state in which they were, separated them into two distinct parts and then tacked upon their largest division.." -- Captain Cuthbert Collingwood, 1797

[This message has been edited by junkboy75 (edited 14 July 2002).]

[CQ]

yeah doctors treating open wounds without gloves on makes me shudder too. all u need is one cut on ur finger (a common thing) and u could be paying for it forever. theres no way i would touch someone with blood on them if i didnt have gloves on.

249

[Cam]

I wonder if Bucks has had a blood test lately. And if he had, whether that would have an effect on the outcome of a tribunal hearing. Like "I had a blood test last week, so i knew that i was wiping 'clean' blood - that there was no possible threat of hiv or anything else. Here are the medical results." Pretty farfetched i know, but something to ponder i guess.

Hard at it. The Collingwood way.

[junkboy75]

blood testing for drugs makes sense but not blood testing for infectious diseases because sportspeople are not exactly in a "high risk" category for aids, hep C, etc...as I said, the blood rule makes sense, but the blood on the jumper rule should be looked at.

HIV cannot be transmitted from saliva, but other viruses can, like meningococcal. simple solution is to get immunised against it.

"..we flew at them as a hawk to his prey, passed through them in the disordered state in which they were, separated them into two distinct parts and then tacked upon their largest division.." -- Captain Cuthbert Collingwood, 1797

[CQ]

and the thing is what would happen if one of them did have hep c or something? only make them go off? then the whole world knows about personal information. yeah right.

249

[PeterWH]

Hey fellows there is no such thing as discrimination...or is there.....?????
The way its going every player will have to wear disposable gloves evertimme they go out on the field...how long will that last??????????????????????/

PeterWH
PIES FOR PREMIERS 2002

[CQ]

we're not talking about the players we are talking about doctors etc. its a little bit different treating a bleeding injury with no gloves on compared to having a bit of blood on your jumper.

players wearing disposable gloves, how ridiculous.

249

[Brown26]

The facts are there is a very low risk of transmition of HIV blood to blood because you need a large amount of virus to get into the blood for effective transmission. However, there is still a risk. Hepatitis is a whole other issue, that's very easy to cross-contaminate via blood.

HIV in saliva is very low, and hepatitis virtually unknown (I think - but don't hold me to that).

drugs for HIV are so good now that they can prevent AIDS developing for years (like 30 years), they believe the current group of HIV positive people may be the first to NEVER develop aids, the drugs are that good. IT's not a cure, just keeps the virus at extremely low levels, so they can live long enough to die of other causes!! They are less infective at this stage also. A footballer can have HIV and no one would know unless he had a blood test, the only safe way is to treat everyone as if they have HIV and hepatitis and tens of other blood borne diseases.

Doctors work with blood every day, they wear gloves to protect themselves, and they also work very hard NOT to get cut, to protect themselves!!!

IT's not that difficult. You get very used to playing with sharp instruments, and you get used to being safe. IT's when people get complacent that they usually ahve problems.

I've never been cut, I take blood at epwoth hospital for a job, cut up cadavars as a student, been working with needles and scalples for about 10 years (to some extent) and you get used to it. But there are things to do if you get cut, ie test the patient for HIV, Hep B and C, etc. It's a danger you ahve to work with, you get used to it.



Pies for Premiers 2002, 3, 4, 5, 6....