So Much Blood

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

What the article showed about “blood exports” and data

  • Commenters highlight the core point: blood-related products are ~0.7% of US exports, not ~2% nor a “top 10 export,” and this is still surprisingly high.
  • Several people praise the careful use of primary trade data (HS codes, USITC site) and note how easy it is for journalists/tools to repeat an eye‑catching but wrong figure.
  • One commenter traces the original error to HS code 3002 (“blood; antisera; vaccines; cultures…”), often truncated to just “Human blood,” which misleads dashboards and casual analysts.
  • Some wonder whether “deep research” LLM tools could replicate this kind of analysis; others doubt it, saying current systems favor consensus secondary sources over careful primary-data work.

HN title norms and discoverability

  • Multiple comments criticize HN’s insistence on original article titles, arguing:
    • Many original titles are opaque or clickbait-ish; better summaries would help scanning.
    • There’s inconsistency: if an original title is too long, submitters effectively do get to choose a new one.
  • Writers say this makes them hesitant to share posts whose titles only make sense “in hindsight.”

Blood and plasma donation systems

  • Large subthread on legal and ethical differences:
    • In parts of Europe (e.g., Netherlands, Italy, France, etc.), donor payment is banned; appeals emphasize altruism and concerns that payment incentivizes lying about health.
    • In the US and a few other countries (Austria, Czech Republic, Germany), plasma donors are paid; whole blood is typically unpaid, though “compensation” like gift cards is common.
    • Clarification: In the US you can sell plasma (via apheresis) but not red cells or platelets.
  • Some argue paying donors degrades safety via socioeconomic selection; others say contamination risks are managed with testing and that bans just create shortages and reliance on US exports.
  • Several draw a parallel to organ markets (e.g., kidneys), noting Iran’s paid system and debates over exploitation vs. reducing waitlists.

Economics, exploitation, and scandals

  • US dominance in plasma exports is attributed to:
    • Legal payment, aggressive private centers targeting poorer populations, and countries discouraged by WHO from commercialized systems.
  • Commenters mention:
    • Historical scandals: tainted US prison blood exported to other countries (notably UK) causing HIV/Hep C infections, now costing billions in compensation.
    • Anecdotes of prepaid plasma “donation” cards being spent on alcohol, reinforcing perceptions that donors are financially desperate.
  • Some see the export dependence as a fragile supply-chain issue; others argue blood infrastructure can be ramped locally and is not a serious “trade war” lever.

Pricing, “nonprofits,” and CEO pay

  • Strong criticism of blood banks and plasma companies:
    • Donors are unpaid or poorly paid while hospitals are billed hundreds to thousands per unit.
    • “Nonprofit” blood centers cited with CEO pay from hundreds of thousands up to several million dollars, plus PE-style financialization.
  • Debate:
    • One side calls such compensation clearly excessive, especially for quasi-public services.
    • The other side argues CEO labor markets and opportunity cost justify mid‑six‑figure salaries, even in nonprofits; skeptics respond with “tournament theory” and board capture arguments.

Miscellaneous side threads

  • Discussion of US vs European rules on donation frequency and safety testing.
  • Observations that plasma can be used for drugs, cosmetics, and high-value specialty products; some rare donors are allegedly compensated very highly.
  • Jokes, puns, and minor side topics (convenience-store beer, tariffs, vampire jokes, etc.) appear but don’t affect the main themes.