[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

No, it's exactly what it says - there is no evidence of coronavirus transmission through blood. Can we say categorically that there is minimal risk? No, not without a controlled study which is going to be difficult (who is up for a blood donation from a COVID 19 positive patient?) We have to wait for evidence to accumulate before we can anything.

I have done a quick search myself for evidence and there are a couple of nice papers;

Coronavirus Disease 2019: Coronaviruses and Blood Safety -this discusses what is seen in general related to coronaviruses including SARS and MERS
COVID-19 transmission and blood transfusion: A case report - a report where a severely immunocompromised patient was given platelets from a donor who was subsequently diagnosed with COVID 19

No, it's exactly what it says - there is no evidence of coronavirus transmission through blood. Can we say categorically that there is minimal risk? No, not without a controlled study which is going to be difficult (who is up for a blood donation from a COVID 19 positive patient?) We have to wait for evidence to accumulate before we can anything.

It is weasel wording. If the statement expanded on why there is no evidence, it would not be weasel wording. Everyone on this thread can think of examples where "they" have said stuff like that and we don't know whether or not the case has been examined.