this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2024
163 points (96.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43940 readers
502 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I've donated plenty of times, because it makes sense that there is no other way to save lives than to donate.
On the other hand, I've been wondering for years, that while I've been told a million times that "blood reserves are low - donate blood now!", I've not ever heard that a single person died due to lack of available blood.
Why would something like that not be reported if you want to motivate people to donate?
My personal guess is that this comes because "lack of avaiable blood donations" isn't a valid cause of death, the cause of death is whatever else (gun shot wound, knife severed artery / complication during surgery etc), thus it's hard to pinpoint. Also Doctors may try to "save" blood, when they know little is available, and people may die that may have lived if they had gotten (more) blood, but also they may not have and it is hard to tell.