In your professional opinions, what would you say that the likelyhood of a generally healthy person, UK-born resident who does not take any forms of drugs, does not have a history of many sexual partners and is a blood donor, is to be HIV positive?
I mean, the fact that they are a blood donor, their blood would most certainly be screened for HIV right? and if discovered that they are positive they would then be notified of the infection? Therefore would you say sleeping with a person with this type of healthy background who occasionally donates blood provides minimal to zero risk of being infected with HIV, thus the risk of having sex, say, unprotected, with such a person would consequently be minimal to zero of acquiring HIV from them?
All blood banks in the UK screen all the blood for HIV and many other infections. All blood donors have to disclose any previous infections, lifestyle, sexuality, etc, and for example men who have sex with men are not allowed to give blood in the UK. Some people think this is unfair, but the blood bank's arguments behind it is that the incidence of HIV is much higher among this group of people and in many cases, if the individual had been infected within the last few weeks, HIV might not be detected in the blood.
In any case, blood is screened and theoretically (and I would also add, inpractice) this person that you are talking about, all in all, would be someone with a very very (practically zero) risk of being HIV positive.
This is not really a reply, but a sort of question very relevant to the topic. I have read in the post that blood donors are usually screened for hiv before they donate, and also that the blood kept by the hospitals is already screened free of hiv. All this is fine. However, I would like to know if the patients receiving the blood donated are also screened to know their hiv status. Thanks in advance for your response.