Getty Images
Getty Images

OPINIONCovid-19April 8, 2020

Potential Covid-19 shortages highlight our homophobic blood bank policy

Getty Images
Getty Images

A simple, long overdue change in New Zealand’s policy for blood donations would benefit everyone, writes Dr Oliver Armstrong-Scott.

The New Zealand Blood Service recently pleaded for Kiwis to continue donating blood during the Covid-19 lockdown to ensure supplies do not run out. As a medical doctor, I have seen firsthand the absolute necessity of a secure supply of blood donations to keep us, the New Zealand public, alive when we fall ill.

Despite this urgent need, many men, including myself, have been left humiliated after being turned away at donation centre doors. Because of this, vulnerable patients are now left wondering whether there will be enough life-preserving blood to go around.

Compare the following two cases: a married gay man in a faithful monogamous relationship for 30 years, versus a single, heterosexual man who has unprotected sex with multiple sexual partners regularly and was treated for chlamydia four weeks ago. The first man has a much lower risk of donating HIV-positive blood than the latter. Yet, unbelievably, the heterosexual man can donate blood in New Zealand while the gay man cannot. Consider whose blood you would prefer to receive to minimize your chances of HIV.

In New Zealand, if you are a male who has had sex with a man (even with a condom) in the past 12 months, the New Zealand Blood Service deems your blood too high risk. This rule is an unacceptable remnant of an antiquated, homophobic society that resulted from the HIV epidemic of the 1980s and must be changed.

By changing the rules so that each gay or bisexual man could donate just once per year, using statistics from the New Zealand Health Survey, an additional 120,000 units of blood could be available to Kiwis who need it each year. Although our blood service maintains an adequate supply during stable times, the coronavirus pandemic reveals just how fragile the system is. Meanwhile critical blood donations are being rejected due to unfounded and discriminatory regulations.

For gay and bisexual men, not being able to contribute to society through giving blood simply because of our sexual practices amounts to blatant discrimination. This only adds to the enormous amount of stigma that men who have sex with men (MSM) face. Having just returned from a year at the Yale School of Public Health, I have never been more aware of the strong link between stigma and poor health. For example, for MSM, stigma contributes to a rate of suicide attempts over five times that of their heterosexual counterparts.

Discriminatory donation policies only reinforce the ridiculous idea that same-sex sexual activity is wrong or unhealthy. Moreover, they have the potential to ‘out’ men asked to donate, for instance in the workplace, where some men may not want to reveal their MSM status because of the discrimination they would face.

So why is New Zealand Blood Service forcing MSM to be celibate for 12 months before donating, when many other countries around the world do not? Essentially, the service is concerned that MSM donors have a higher risk of providing a sample infected with HIV. This logic is flawed. Risk of donating HIV-positive blood is not based on simply being MSM; it is the level of risky sexual behaviours that determines risk of HIV, regardless of who you are having sex with.

Unquestionably, donating is not a right and the interests of the recipients and therefore the safety of the blood is paramount. Recipients are vulnerable and most often have no choice but to receive the blood. We do need policies that minimise risk to recipients but the MSM ban does not do this.

Screening should be based on high risk behaviour regardless of whom you have sex with. Several countries including Spain and Italy have implemented this individualised risk assessment policy, and research shows the policy caused no increased risk of HIV for recipients. Surely a country like New Zealand, the country which first gave women the right to vote, should be following suit?

Individualised risk assessment treats everyone the same. It also weeds out those high risk donors much more accurately than a blanket MSM ban. Changing the policy would therefore likely to lead to a reduction in the risk of recipients receiving HIV-positive blood.

To be sure, there is a higher rate of HIV in MSM folk in general. But remember, the risk of HIV in high risk heterosexuals is greater than in low risk MSM. Furthermore, all donated blood is tested for all sorts of conditions. Even if an HIV-positive donor gave blood, in most cases it would be detected and the sample thrown away. The fact of the matter is that with the right implementation, allowing people to donate regardless of who they have sex with is both possible and safe – and is the moral thing to do.

In response to Covid-19, the US has just reduced its blood donor ban, previously the same as New Zealand’s, to three months of celibacy for MSM. Some countries like Canada and the UK have also changed their policies in recent years. (Three months is the period during which someone can have acquired HIV but tests may not pick it up). The relaxation of rules overseas only underlines how outdated New Zealand’s 12 month ban is, but the wider point is that the rule should not exist at all for MSM specifically. High risk heterosexuals may also have undetectable levels of HIV in their blood within three months of sexual activity and can donate, while low risk MSM cannot. This does not make sense.

Like the US, we too should use Covid-19 as a stimulus to change our outdated policies. An individualised policy allowing men who have sex with men, with low risk sexual behaviour, to donate blood would return New Zealand to its status as a world leader in anti-discrimination policy. Such a change is desperately needed to counter bi- and homophobic stigma, increase the supply to New Zealand’s blood banks, and reduce the risk of HIV in blood donations. This is a win-win strategy for everyone in New Zealand. Let’s change this obsolete ban on blood donations and save lives.

Keep going!
Image: Tina Tiller
Image: Tina Tiller

SocietyApril 8, 2020

How – and when – will New Zealand come out of lockdown?

Image: Tina Tiller
Image: Tina Tiller

Tonight New Zealand marks the halfway point of alert level four. Assuming, that is, it ends on schedule. What will determine the decision to lift the strictest restrictions, and what comes next? Kate Newton of RNZ asks the experts.

Covid-19 researchers in New Zealand are optimistic that the level four restrictions could be lifted in at least some regions in a few weeks – but warn that New Zealanders should brace themselves to do things differently for up to 18 months.

The initial level four period is due to end on April 23, although Jacinda Ardern has said the effects of the lockdown would not start to become clear until later this week – when enough time would have passed for anyone who was already infected to have shown symptoms.

With businesses, workers and parents of school-aged children all keen to get out from under level four’s thumb, RNZ asked experts when that might happen – and what it might look like.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Director General of Health Ashley Bloomfield (Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)

Is four weeks long enough?

Together with his fellow researchers at Te Pūnaha Matatini – a research unit that studies complex systems – Shaun Hendy has been working on new modelling of Covid-19’s spread in New Zealand that can better predict short-term outcomes.

He is feeling optimistic. Since March 26 – the first day of alert level four – daily cases have bounced around, going as high as 89 new cases and as low as 54, but are no longer showing the distinct upward trend from before the lockdown. Yesterday, for the first time, recoveries exceeded new cases – meaning the total number of current cases actually dipped.

Hendy says the lack of exponential growth in cases shows the lockdown is worth it – but it can feel counterintuitive. “I’m reasonably confident now that we’re not going to see a big ballooning of cases during this lockdown period. So it’s going to look like nothing’s happening – but actually this lockdown is stopping that ballooning from happening … We’re actually holding [the numbers] in check.”

So will cases simply explode if we lift the lockdown now?

The magic number is something called R0 – the number of new cases each existing case creates. When R0 drops below 1, the total number of cases starts to go down, because the new cases are no longer keeping up with recoveries. Only then can the country think about easing restrictions, Hendy says.

He says R0 very much depends on everyone’s behaviour for the remaining lockdown period – the more strictly everyone adheres to the rules, the fewer new cases are created. “There’s a really optimistic scenario where we could go to level three and still eliminate,” he says. “If we’re as good as the Chinese you could think about coming off [the strictest level].”

Alternatively, there are scenarios the team has modelled where four weeks isn’t quite enough: “We might need to extend it for longer – it might turn into six or eight weeks.”

The worst outcome would be if people – seeing case numbers start to stall – begin to slack off, he says. “If we’re all a bit lackadaisical … then actually there are scenarios where we wouldn’t be able to come off lockdown for a very long time.”

Otago University infectious diseases specialist Ayesha Verrall feels positive about the way cases are tracking. “I don’t see any reason we shouldn’t be able to finish the lockdown in four weeks if we’ve followed the plans we’ve made and if we scale up the contact-tracing and refine our surveillance.”

That’s a big if, though.

Over the weekend, the Ministry of Health trumpeted the fact that its new National Close Contact Service had traced 700 contacts in a single day. With the lockdown in place, new cases only have three to five contacts each – meaning the service is tracing the contacts of about 200 cases a day.

Verrall believes New Zealand needs the ability to contact-trace 1000 cases a day, so it can keep ahead of even a large outbreak. Director-General of Health Ashley Bloomfield says there’s still plenty of untapped capacity, but yesterday announced that Verrall would be brought in to audit the contact-tracing process.

Verrall bases her opinion on a paper published in medical journal The Lancet a month ago, which modelled how thorough and fast contact tracing needed to be to bring an outbreak of Covid-19 under control.

“It said, and I think this is plausible, contact tracing doesn’t need to be perfectly complete. That paper said that if we could trace 80% we could still achieve control,” Verrall says.

“But what we can’t compromise on is speed. We have to go from the case getting sick, to their diagnosis, their result coming back and being reported, the public health service being notified and the contacts being notified and put in isolation.”

All that had to happen within four days to stay ahead of the spread, she says.

Initially, testing turnaround times were slower than that in some cases. However, the Ministry of Health says that on average Covid-19 tests are now turned around within a day, with contact-tracing beginning as soon as a positive result is confirmed. The ministry could not give an average timeframe for the entire process – from diagnosis to isolation of contacts – other than to say it “varies widely depending on the situation”.

Professor Shaun Hendy in a scene from the documentary Dancing With Atoms

Could we go back into a level four lockdown?

Hendy says that when the initial lockdown period ends, our level four days are highly unlikely to be over.

The most likely scenario is an easing of restrictions – back to level three or even level two – but with aggressive contact-tracing and testing to weed out new cases. If new clusters flare up, level four could be brought back in as a back-up.

“At least one scenario we’ve looked at, we could manage it with much shorter lockdowns than this one,” Hendy says. “If you do enough work at the outset then your ramp-up back to level four can be a bit of a fail-safe, and it may not have to be as lengthy and as strong as this initial one. You’ve used this initial period to slow the disease right down and then you can use that switch back up to level four to break any waves that hit you again.”

Level four could also be applied with much more precision, he says.

The effect of the initial lockdown has been to localise the spread of the virus – clusters have largely been contained to the region they originated in.

“We might be able to look at parts of the country that haven’t had a case for a long time and have some degree of confidence that we could [lower] the level there,” Hendy says. “That might also be useful for us, useful for the government, in understanding how people are going to react at that transition point.”

Can we hack a longer lockdown?

Jacinda Ardern has praised the public for how well everyone has adhered to the restrictions so far. However, as time passes and cases fail to rocket up, Hendy says the lockdown may become harder to stomach for some.

Countries like Italy and France, which have had lockdowns in place for over a month already with plans to further extend them face much more horrific circumstances. “People overseas are actually doing it; they’re making their lockdowns effective, but the qualification to that is that the disease is much more prevalent and so the situation facing them is scarier.”

Victoria University clinical psychologist Dougal Sutherland says acceptance of a longer lockdown here depends on how and when the government makes its decision.

“If level four is to be extended for some or all of us, that decision needs to be made as soon as possible to allow people to adjust their expectations and reduce the feelings of disappointment and anger that may naturally occur,” he says. “Having a bored and grumpy population who are losing motivation is a situation the government will want to avoid.”

How will things change in the medium-term?

An end to level four isn’t a return to normal life, Hendy says. “As soon as things get relaxed, everybody’s going to want to go out and do a bunch of things that they haven’t been able to do at level four.”

If everyone rushes out to fulfil their lockdown cravings, it “could actually be pretty bad”, he says. “It’s going to be really key how the government manages that transition and just makes sure that we don’t all go a bit crazy and ruin all the good work that we’ve done at level four.”

Ayesha Verrall says the lockdown was necessary to buy time, but she would like to see more nuanced policy developed so the restriction levels don’t need to be so blunt. “We have better tools than we did when we went in. So if we had more sophisticated surveillance, we could apply lockdown on a regional basis. If we had more strength in our contact tracing, we could have a higher threshold for the number of cases in any region before applying a lockdown.”

New Zealand could also learn from countries like Hong Kong that have experienced previous outbreaks such as SARS. “They have a lot more in the social distancing toolkit than we appear to have and they use other options more creatively than we have.”

That could include changes to the way the education system works, Verrall says. “Currently our framework has schools open, and schools closed. You can have schools where the children don’t have a common lunch hour, which would reduce mixing; you can have much better processes around hygiene at school entry and exit. You could have guidelines for the seating in schools that will hopefully have some reduction in the amount of contact.”

Similar behaviours could develop in businesses. “Some of the things like physical distancing – two metres in all your shop queues – we could apply those when the shops are open… In some cases, the number of people in a store at one time.”

A sign on State Highway 1 in Wellington (Photo by Mark Tantrum/Getty Images)

When will all of this be over?

Both Hendy and Verrall agree that the real end-game to the upheaval created by Covid-19 is a vaccine.

“If you’re pursuing an elimination strategy so you avoid tens of thousands of deaths, then you need to manage the risk of an outbreak until you get a vaccine or a treatment – and that might be 18 months away,” Verrall says.

Even countries like Italy that have suffered a huge death toll are nowhere near herd immunity, Hendy says. “Even though it seems like surely it must have peaked there, it’s the lockdown that’s forced that peak … they could have exactly the same thing happen to them [again] in a couple of months.”

He says there are some promising treatments and antibody tests being developed, but those are still months away at best and won’t be available to everyone. “So we’re all going to have to wait – all countries, no matter how we travel in the next little while – are going to have to wait on that vaccine. It’ll be the same here. We’re going to have to live with some of these measures for quite a long time.”

The spread of Covid-19 overseas means that long after New Zealand is able to lift restrictions on everyday life, the border will remain closed, Hendy says. “The border controls are going to be with us the longest. The testing, the tracing, the self-isolation – that’s going to be around for a while too.”

Visiting friends and family within New Zealand and returning to work and school won’t be quite as far away, he hopes. “Hopefully the physical distancing is something that – if we’re able to eliminate – then we can start relaxing some of those things, which means many of us can get back to our jobs and have a bit of a social life again.”