Blood drives must be bogus

Why is there a need for blood if they’re not finding any survivors? I think the Red Cross is just using this as an excuse to stockpile blood – which is a good thing; we’re always running low, but I don’t see how it can have anything to do with any need for blood in NYC.

  1. There were a great many injured people who used up lots of blood. A burn victim can go through 10 units.

  2. Everybody was hoping to find hundreds of wounded people in the rubble. Optimistic, yes. Bogus, no.

  3. The blood supply was already running low nationwide (always happens at the end of the summer). Any excuse to get it back up to where it should be is a good thing.

Yes, it’s all a gigantic conspiracy on the part of the American Red Cross and the Salvation Army to get us to roll up our sleeves and be stuck with humongous needles. They love the way we scream…

Seriously–huh? :confused:

Er, there were other people injured besides the ones buried in the towers, you know. People in the streets who had debris fall on them, for one thing. People who were injured when their cars swerved and struck a light pole while they were busy watching a jet fly into the World Trade Center. People who went into premature labor from shock and had bloody miscarriages.

Like that. :wink:

According to this:
“There were 82 confirmed deaths, NBC News reported early Thursday — a number that was sure to grow. At least 1,700 people were reported injured.” (bolding mine)

Call your local Red Cross and ask them where the donated blood will be used. The Red Cross here in Evansville, Indiana, is holding a massive 3-day blood drive in a local sports stadium, for which people are standing in line for hours, and their publicity for it all mentions NYC. This morning, they admitted that the blood being donated here is going to the local hospitals.

I’m not saying there’s a conspiracy; I’m saying that the initial blood drive effort was presented as having to do with the WTC survivors. I have been searching the Red Cross website and nowhere does it say that NYC now has a blood shortage. They just say that if you want to help, you can donate blood, vaguely implying that blood donations will help NYC, but not actually saying how.

Sure, the burn victims and other injured people needed a lot of blood over the past several days. But is there an ongoing need for blood right now that is exceeding East Coast supplies? Can anyone confirm that there is right now a blood shortage in NYC?

I finally found some concrete information.

Yesterday, the organization called American’s Blood Centers admitted that the blood supply is adequate. “The areas hit hardest have received the blood they need and continue to receive blood types that are most in demand.”

Whole blood has to be used within 42 days, so over-stocking is actually not a good idea.

Obviously, there could easily be a need for blood in the next two months; but they are suggesting that people not give blood now, but wait for further information in 2 to 8 weeks, when they will let us know if a shortage is developing. People who give blood now will not be able to donate again for two months.

Blood, like money, is liquid.

Could it be the case Indiana needs to stock up for
hospitals because they’ve sent lots of blood to NYC?

From what I read at one local newspaper this morning(The Alligator, I am in Gainesville), NYC requested not to send more blood units FOR THE MOMENT. But the blood units donated here are either in stand by to be send to NYC at any moment, or sent to the University of Alabama, whose hospital was selected to treat some of the injured (burn victims, if I remember). So, this early morning (or late night Wednesday) the blood center in Gainesville was told not to send more units to NYC, but the units are send instead to the University of Alabama.

These may not be the state right now. Maybe NYC is accepting the blood donations of the area that Citivan covers.

Just in case: Even if right now, at this hour, ALL people needing blood units have received them, that does not means there is no shortage, that the blood donations should stop, that the emergency passed, or that there would not be need for blood in the next hour. As some people have already pointed out, the injured from the WTC incident will need blood for some time to come.

Okay, so maybe there is no “actual shortage”, but so what? What’s your point in this thread? To tell us, “Don’t give blood”? Why do you care?

Link to your info.

It keeps well under refrigeration, freezes very nicely, so what’s the big deal?

Besides, how do we know it’s over? What price Jets #5 and #6 taking out something else in a couple of days? We’d feel pretty silly if we’d said, “Welp, show’s over, folks, we don’t need any more blood, you can all go home now” and then had to get them all to come back in…

Sorry, forgot the link:

The upshot is that it may not be a good idea to donate right now. Your blood may be needed in 5 to 7 weeks.

Why do I care??

Good grief, I care because the public is being misinformed.
Blood drives are being conducted today and tomorrow across the county, on the premise that blood is needed in NYC right now, and it is NOT needed in NYC right now.

It’s a simple matter of truth and accuracy. I like truth and accuracy, personally.

Additionally, if there is a blood shortage in 5 to 7 weeks, the blood donated today will NOT be usable (it has to be used within 42 days), and the people who donated today will NOT be able to donate at that point (you have to wait 60 days before donating again).

Do the math.

I believe that before the whole blood goes to waste after 40 some-odd days that the plasma can be removed and stored for much longer. Therefore, in a sense none of the blood will go to waste at all.

The public is not being misinformed. Every single broadcast I’ve heard in regards to blood donation tells you to make an appointment to donate blood, not to rush in this very second to do it. Virtually all the news sources are saying that the need for blood will continue over the next few weeks. Obviously the exact amount needed will depend on the number of survivors and the extent of their injuries, but it’s better to to have too much blood rather than enough.

As has been pointed out in numerous threads, blood has a shelf life of anywhere from 3-5 weeks. Donating now will not mean that blood is going to go bad; I have a very grim feeling that hospitals will be using blood long before it reaches its expiration date.

Frankly, I don’t understand why you trying to stand behind the “truth and honesty” banner on this issue. Even if, for some bizarre reason the Red Cross was using this incident to increase the total amount of blood stored in banks, that’s not a bad thing. Do you think the ARC is going to waste the blood? There are lots of people not involved in the WTC disaster that need blood just as badly (like my mom; she just had surgery to repair a hole in her bladder). The ARC is not going to profit from additional blood stores. The only people that will “profit” will be the sick and injured.

You do realize, of course, that not all the whole blood will be used.

Donations will (hopefully) still go through the screening process, as there are people who, either knowingly or unknowingly, donate while ill (colds, on medication, have hepatitis or other diseases). People donate in the heat of the moment (“I must do SOMETHING”) or are subtly/not-so-subtly pressured by others (“Hey Bill, see you at the company blood drive, right?”). God forbid, we get a further tragedy that could have been prevented by a misguided albeit mell-meaning person.** Screening will likely delete a few pints here and there.

Others still donate, but use the second bar code sticker (“DO NOT USE MY BLOOD”) to give the appearance of having done something, but their blood will not get into the general supply. That lowers the overall number of pints available.

Remember too, there are communities that also have local disasters and may still need the blood. At this time I am hearing sparse details about an Amtrak crash in Utah. If there are injuries, someone is going to need blood. Disasters don’t wait. There are still people who need emergency and elective surgery. There are still babies needing transfusions.

I’m going in next week (since the line was too long Tuesday and they sent us home). There will still be a need next week.

** Disclaimer - I do not imply that all persons with any sort of illness purposely donate in order to give the appearance of ‘heroism’. I have seen cases where people with a bad cold donate blood “so I can feel good about helping, and they can filter out the germs later.” Idiot.

Hmm…if there will be a blood shortage in 5-7 weeks, wouldn’t that mean that they are actually using the blood donations people are giving? Do you thing no one will need blood until about 5-7 weeks?

For the information about separating blood components, you can pass by this thread:

Honestly, it’s just a little troubling to me too.

I agree that (1) it’s difficult to tell in advance how much blood will be needed; (2) blood is needed anyway; (3) many people will take great satisfaction and solace from donating blood; so (4) so why not encourage people to donate?

At the same time, I would feel more comfortable if public health authorities were totally upfront about the above points. From marilinn’s posts, I gather that have not been so, and this bothers me (just a little).

>>if there will be a blood shortage in 5-7 weeks, wouldn’t that mean that they are actually using the blood donations people are giving? <<

Blood has to be used in 42 days. So 42 days from now there may be a blood shortage.

I would encourage people NOT to donate blood this week, but to wait for at least two weeks, or until the ABC “sounds the call” for more blood.

As the ABC says:

“People interested in giving blood now should consider instead giving blood in the next two to eight weeks to avoid future blood shortages that often occur in the months following national tragedies. Our shelves of blood could be empty in a month and possibly the next two months. When this happens, we will sound the call to donate blood and will need the current level of support from donors at that time,” Ms. Dariotis added.

lucwarm, I’m not sure what exactly you’re expecting public health officials to do. The information on blood needs is available on the Red Cross site. The spokespeople that you see on the news only have a short amount of time to give their message, and they usally do spend time telling people to make appointments (i.e., don’t donate it all at once). Maralinn has even posted a quote from the ABC telling everyone to wait a bit.

To be honest, there is ALWAYS a need for blood donations. While blood donations are probably at all-time high, I really doubt that much of (if any) will go to waste.

Are you guys trying to suggest that there’s something wrong about the idea of blood collection? Or do you have some information that shows the the ARC is trying to bilk us out of our precious bodily fluids?

I don’t know if this a debate or a rant, but it certainly doesn’t seem to be a general question. This thread is closed.

moderator GQ

they just interviewed a lady from the red cross and she said blood can be frozen and the red cells can be used for 10 years