But you said So we're looking at the population "all heterosexuals".
I don't think that covers it. The statistical claim compares homosexuals with African-Americans, and is indeed bogus as stated.
However, let's look deeper. Accepting the stats quoted, and using the fact that 13% of Americans are black plus the estimate that 2-5% of the population are practising homosexuals we see that yes indeed, "homosexual blood" is at least (42/5) / (33/95) = 24 times more "dangerous" than "straight blood". However, "African-American blood" is still roughly (54/13) / (33/95) = 12 times more dangerous than average "straight blood" (including straight African-Americans).
"Dangerous" here means "likely to be from a donor who is a recent case of HIV infection".
So, assuming all the things that need to be assumed about the independence of being gay, being black, and infection rates in the various intersections, I think it's reasonable to question the criteria by which "high-risk" groups are defined.
However, someone else on the law blog has questioned whether infection mechanisms are similar in the ways required. They say that in fact most black HIV infections would be excluded from giving blood for other reasons, or just don't give blood. In the absence of that extra information suggesting that "black blood" is safer than it looks, there is a case to answer.
Re: Stats Blindness
But you said So we're looking at the population "all heterosexuals".
I don't think that covers it. The statistical claim compares homosexuals with African-Americans, and is indeed bogus as stated.
However, let's look deeper. Accepting the stats quoted, and using the fact that 13% of Americans are black plus the estimate that 2-5% of the population are practising homosexuals we see that yes indeed, "homosexual blood" is at least (42/5) / (33/95) = 24 times more "dangerous" than "straight blood". However, "African-American blood" is still roughly (54/13) / (33/95) = 12 times more dangerous than average "straight blood" (including straight African-Americans).
"Dangerous" here means "likely to be from a donor who is a recent case of HIV infection".
So, assuming all the things that need to be assumed about the independence of being gay, being black, and infection rates in the various intersections, I think it's reasonable to question the criteria by which "high-risk" groups are defined.
However, someone else on the law blog has questioned whether infection mechanisms are similar in the ways required. They say that in fact most black HIV infections would be excluded from giving blood for other reasons, or just don't give blood. In the absence of that extra information suggesting that "black blood" is safer than it looks, there is a case to answer.