This was posted 4 years 11 months 17 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

[SA] Adelaide City Council Free Upark Parking (Worth $20) When Donating Blood

980
[SA] Adelaide City Council Free Upark Parking (Worth $20) When Donating Blood
Go to Deal
LCgiclinic on 05/01/2020 - 13:16 donateblood.com.au (418 clicks)
Last edited 06/01/2020 - 17:22 by 1 other user

Hey Adelaide friends, ever thought about donating blood to the Red Cross? But transport and car parking was a barrier? 🏥

Did you know, you can register and book appointments online and if you have an appointment in the donor centre in Regent Arcade, Adelaide City Council Upark gives you free car parking. Winning! 🚗

Lastly, please wear a condom when having sex with Tinder strangers because the nice people at Red Cross will ask you “have you had at-risk sexual behaviour” in the last 12 months? Erm… How awkward! 🤦🏻‍♂️

Having worked in tertiary burns units myself, you realise how quickly burns victims go through bags of blood.

Edit: thanks for awarding this post a “first post wonder” badge. I hope that amongst all the controversy around the eligibility to donate, some of you actually donate and get free parking.

Edit 2: I can confirm that when you are done they give you a 3hr ($20) voucher that you use to pay for your ticket. I was done in 1hr giving whole blood. I then went next door and bought Manchester at 50% off at Harris Scarfe closing down sale. I then had more than an hour left spare!

Other Parking

Related Stores

donateblood.com.au
donateblood.com.au
UPark
UPark

closed Comments

  • Spets on 05/01/2020 - 13:43
    +4

    Any tips on not fainting giving blood?

    • trev likes bargains on 05/01/2020 - 14:23
      +1

      Go well hydrated. Keep sipping water to be hydrated. Drinking a lot of water in one go doesn't work

      • Cgiclinic on 05/01/2020 - 15:10
        +3

        Psychologically, try not to look, remind yourself to breathe and if all else fails scroll thru ozbargain for the latest deal to keep yourself occupied.

        • i0k-0RU2zd10c on 05/01/2020 - 19:10
          +1

          I always get the nurse to cover my arm with cloth so that I don't get to see my own blood.
          I faint sometimes when I see blood.

    • CocaKoala on 05/01/2020 - 15:35
      +1

      Ensure that you're well hydrated and have had a nourishing meal (about an hour or two) before donating blood. Remembering that you're donating blood to save another life always helps. :-)

    • outlander on 05/01/2020 - 16:28
      +1

      Well, I figured this out by trying to do the opposite of what your asking, but about 4 hours before your appointment you should do 3 things

      a) Eat a decent meal, with some form of protein in it, preferably 100g or more of red meat.
      b) Exercise. A run, bike ride or weight lifting (best) will get your body into high power mode.
      c) Drink an electrolyte rich liquid. Something like Gatorade watered down by half to 2/3rds will do fine.

      You should try to stay moderately active until the appointment time, but don't push it too much. Likewise, keep drinking up to the appointment time, but not so much that your visiting the toilet more than once an hour.

      Do that, and the blood will flow

    • Cgiclinic on 06/01/2020 - 17:23

      I asked to sit for a few more minutes at the end because I was feeling apprehensive. I think ate free cheese and crackers and chocolate milk and felt great after!

  • kronicmacstigator on 05/01/2020 - 13:47
    +3

    Sorry, I fall into 'that' category… yes I'm a poof

    • Lucille Bluth on 05/01/2020 - 14:18
      +9

      Don't worry maybe next week there will be a sperm donor deal free hotdogs or something

  • Stinge Master on 05/01/2020 - 13:58
    +1

    On their site it says it's only free for the duration of your visit giving blood. So it's not like you could give blood then use the parking for a couple hours. Would be more of an incentive especially for first time donors if they could park for longer after their visit, maybe they should consider this?

    • diazepam on 05/01/2020 - 14:11
      +1

      For the Melbourne one, they just change your ticket. You can park for as long as you want… I don't recommend it given how tight parking is and there's only a few reserved for the blood donors but yeah you can. Wonder if it's the same for Adelaide.

      • iMagoo on 05/01/2020 - 14:12

        Adelaide one they give your ticket back and a voucher to cover it, you insert both into the payment machine.

      • Troposa on 05/01/2020 - 23:09

        At Oaklands Park/Marion Adelaide there are 6-8 parking spaces for donors. Parking is not an issue. There's more free parking across the road.

    • iMagoo on 05/01/2020 - 14:12
      +1

      They do have varying length of vouchers, not sure what the max is, but I'd say at least 2hours.

  • c64 on 05/01/2020 - 13:59
    +1

    the red cross spam you on your mobile number and email address

    • terrys on 05/01/2020 - 14:01
      +3

      As a money donor maybe - and easily blocked if you know how to use your phone. For blood donors, not so.

      • coxymla on 05/01/2020 - 18:03

        Not in my experience as a donor. I got called mercilessly; every time I said that I did it through work and they should stop calling me and pester my work instead. It never worked.

    • c64 on 05/01/2020 - 14:08
      -2

      no, i donated blood once. everything went fine. however, afterwards i got pestered via mobile & email. needless to say i haven't donated since. in the end i changed my mobile number. so if you feel inclined, buy a disposable sim from aldi. create an email alias that can be discarded.

      • diazepam on 05/01/2020 - 14:12
        +5

        Pretty sure you can ask them to not call you.
        I got called once in a really inconvenient time and I asked them to never call me again. Not a problem, haven't been called back. I just book the donations as I see fit.

      • Tacooo on 05/01/2020 - 15:03
        +6

        in the end i changed my mobile number.

        What a drastic and stupid overreaction to something that could have been solved with a simple phone call or even going online and sending an email.

        • c64 on 06/01/2020 - 09:55

          i did complete the online form twice but that did not stop being pestered.

      • c64 on 06/01/2020 - 09:53

        well, i'm just reporting my experience and my advice if you do want to donate: use a disposable working phone number & email (but don't give any false details).'

        and to make matters worse, they had their entire database leaked online by leaving a backup copy on their webserver.

  • albertagung on 05/01/2020 - 14:01

    At the same time, you can walk or ride a bike in this wonderful city prior to donating blood

    • lainey13 on 05/01/2020 - 21:51

      Actually I donated blood after gym once and they said they recommend no exercise before or after giving blood!
      Killed my weekend plans to gym then donate then top up with free food….

      • albertagung on 07/01/2020 - 11:33

        Yes, you are right lainey13, I biked for 14 km prior to and one of the nurses asked me to postpone the donation for 3 hours and insisted I need to get home by car/public transport

  • dorian_gray on 05/01/2020 - 14:10
    +2

    I am gay and monogamous with my husband and yet the Red Cross will not accept my blood.

    • Lucille Bluth on 05/01/2020 - 14:21
      +1

      Same.

    • AussieZed on 05/01/2020 - 14:23
      +10

      That's terrible that just because you're happy they won't take your blood. Couldn't you pretend to be miserable?

    • deme on 05/01/2020 - 14:30
      +4

      husband

      It's fine if you haven't had sex in 12 months 🤣

      • dorian_gray on 05/01/2020 - 14:33
        +1

        I don't want to be that couple.

    • Tacooo on 05/01/2020 - 15:04
      -2

      What's your point? There's a damn good reason for it. It's not like they hate gays or anything.

      • callum9999 on 05/01/2020 - 17:17

        I think their point is that there ISN'T a damn good reason, and these rules are a relic from when it was indeed normal to hate gays…

        There's a good reason to be cautious (and given the increased prevalence of HIV etc in the gay community, I wouldn't object to more stringent restrictions than with heterosexual people), but I don't think any scientific conclusions support the current policy.

        To demonstrate this, men can have unprotected sex with a different random woman every day of the year and be fine to donate. If they had protected sex with another man once in the last 12 months then they can't. Which behaviour do you think is more risky?

        • Tacooo on 05/01/2020 - 17:53
          -1

          Males that have sex with males (MSM) have a far greater statistical probability of having many sexually transmitted diseases. This is just a statistical fact.

          The most difficult infections to detect are early infections. Cases where the person themselves probably doesn't even know that they have the disease yet. Again looking at the statistics, the highest rates of new infections are among MSM.

          The first problem with testing for these infections is that samples are generally not tested individually. The tests are so sensitive that you can take the blood from 10 people, mix it together, and then test that set as a group. So rather than having to do the test 10 times, you can do it once. This saves money and time without reducing accuracy.

          However, what happens if one of those 10 people is infected? All 10 of those donations are going to be thrown out, wasting further donations that could have been used when needed.

          Secondly, even if that wasn't an issue, that blood goes through dozens of hands. Accidental needle sticks are rare, but not unheard of. So that blood is still a risk. So they want to reduce the chance.

          TL;DR there isn't one. Read the (profanity) text.

          • healsdoihasdi on 05/01/2020 - 18:11
            +3

            @Tacooo: The flaw being "Husband" as long as they are both tested and had sex with just one sexual partner over the past X months then there is no more cause for concern then heterosexual individuals. The banning of homosexuals at this point is purely religious reasons / people stuck in their ways like you.

            MSM are at higher risk, that is for sure. But the rule should be the same as a heterosexual person, have you had unprotected sex/oral with an individual you didn't know the STI status of in the past X months.

            With this general rule, if someone gets around a lot then they will mark themselves off. If the man is in a loving relationship with their husband, they would be allowed to donate for their whole lives as a couple.

            If you imply the 'detection early' then you are also implying people are lieng on their induction sheet, which at that point no arguments matter as that person has lied.

            So instead of looking for ways to say 'no' look for ways of saying 'yes'. 10% of the population is gay(rough figure from memory) thats 5% male. If you change the rules, you now have a larger population of donators*, that's a win in my book.

            • Tacooo on 05/01/2020 - 18:40

              @healsdoihasdi: Consider the fact (again - fact) that gay men have sex while married or in committed relationships a lot more (~8x more in fact) and are also a lot more likely to cheat in a relationship. So yes, that one donor could well indeed be sleeping with one person and only that one person. However the one person they're sleeping with could very well be sleeping with one or more other gay males (again, with an increased risk of STDs) further increasing their risk.

              So let's say that we do allow gay males to donate blood. What do you gain from it? You increase the donation pool 5% and increase the HIV risk 50%. Yeah seems like a great trade off indeed.

              Please don't assume to know my feelings towards people of certain orientations or anything either. It's absolutely bullshit and reprehensible for you to try and assume I feel ill towards them just because I follow basic logic and science when considering blood donations and saving lives.

              Oh and @callum9999

              To demonstrate this, men can have unprotected sex with a different random woman every day of the year and be fine to donate

              No, they can't. If you weren't talking shit you'd know that's not true. It's one of the most basic screening questions there is.

              • healsdoihasdi on 05/01/2020 - 18:54
                +2

                @Tacooo: Well it seems like you are stuck in your way from one your replied with.

                What you replied with was implying they lied on their induction sheet, which I made a note of in my reply and if they lied on that sheet it doesn't matter, at the point it could be someone who knows their HIV+. So all you replied with was basically stats to push your agenda. You seem very against gay people in a relationship who aren't (profanity) everyone they see, like they are a fairy tale.

                So I do assume, because the information i'm getting from you is you think gay guys are all sexual deviants who will lie on the induction sheet just so they can get a kick out of donating at risk blood. It is pretty ridiculous.

                All your statements above are covered by what I said, if they take their induction as everyone does and they have the question that states about sexual partners in X months(6 is usually considered okay for HIV detection, but you can go to 12 to be safer) that 'have they had intercourse / oral with a partner they are unaware of in the last X months' you can even a dd the stipulation of 'MSM' if you really wanna target the question.

                Anyways I've got work to do, seems like you are pretty stuck in your ways and enough time has been spent on ya.

                • theg00s3 on 05/01/2020 - 19:03

                  @healsdoihasdi: Some countries (like the UK) only make MSM wait 3 months, which is very fair

                • Tacooo on 05/01/2020 - 20:14

                  @healsdoihasdi:

                  What you replied with was implying they lied on their induction sheet

                  No it wasn't. Are you even reading what I'm writing or just making up whatever fits your agenda here?
                  * Person A has sex with person B
                  * Person B has sex with person C without person A knowing
                  * Person A then goes to a blood donor centre, says they haven't had sex with anyone at risk and is not lying about it as they didn't know B and C engaged in sex

                  You seem very against gay people in a relationship who aren't (profanity) everyone they see, like they are a fairy tale.

                  How did you even assume that? I'm simply stating facts as to why blood donation centres don't accept MSM clientele. Geez mate, I'm out here literally doing nothing but educating and you place some bullshit assumption like that on me?

                  So I do assume, because the information i'm getting from you is you think gay guys are all sexual deviants who will lie on the induction sheet just so they can get a kick out of donating at risk blood. It is pretty ridiculous.

                  No, you're reading between the lines and making up your own conclusions while ignoring - again - facts. I've stated nothing but facts, you've said nothing but conjecture. If you want to bring your own facts out to back up what you're saying then go ahead. I'd be happy to hear some logical counterpoints to this argument but so far all I'm getting is conjecture.

                  Anyways I've got work to do, seems like you are pretty stuck in your ways and enough time has been spent on ya.

                  Good way out of an argument. I've been honoured to have taken up 67% of your comments here on OzBargain though.

                  • healsdoihasdi on 06/01/2020 - 16:22
                    +1

                    @Tacooo: A new day, more time.

                    It seems like you keep telling me i'm reading between the lines when you omit the main statement I make about there being a monogamous relationship and just keep falling back to the 'MSM people sleep around a lot' which I agreed with you in the above post is fact that MSM have more sexual partners per year then others.

                    But you keep overlooking the whole part of the argument which is what makes you sound like a homophobic (profanity), which i feel like you are doing on purpose, as it seems confusing on how you have managed to ignore it multiple times.

                    When there is a daddy who loves another daddy and they only love each other. Those people know each others STI status. That means there is NO REASON for those people not to be able to donate blood when a question on the blood donor induction asks HAVE YOU HAD SEX WITH A PARTNER YOU WERE UNaWARE OF THEIR STI STATUS IN THE LAST 6 MONTHS. You keep ignoring this and going 'gay people sleep around, they are dirty' instead of arguing with the main point i'm making.

                    So now the reason I end this conversation is I can't be bothered going around in circles with someone who can't take the main point of my statement and refute it and just keeps repeating 'I'M SAYING FACTS' that don't apply to the argument i'm making.

                    So have a good one friend. In regards to my low post count, because I don't normally have to face ignorance that often on ozbargain.

              • callum9999 on 05/01/2020 - 20:11

                @Tacooo: Are you able to prove that? The eligibility guide on the Red Cross website definitely does not rule out that scenario.

                Granted I've never given blood here (I'm originally from the UK so I'm tainted!), so I'm not sure if they have stricter criteria once you get there (though that makes very little sense).

                I have no idea what "(profanity) text" I'm meant to be reading? If YOU bothered to read the (profanity) text I wrote then you'd see I very clearly already stated that MSM have higher infection rates, rendering your reply utterly pointless.

                • Tacooo on 05/01/2020 - 20:18

                  @callum9999: I'll concede I was wrong about that. I was misremembering the questionnaire they give you at the beginning.

                  • callum9999 on 05/01/2020 - 20:26

                    @Tacooo: I take it you also accept my point that men who regularly have unprotected sex with random women are at a higher risk of having HIV than a gay person who has never had unprotected sex?

                    • Tacooo on 05/01/2020 - 20:28

                      @callum9999: I would accept it as probably true but I'm not going to say it's 100%. Sex isn't the only way HIV spreads and condoms aren't 100% fail proof.

                      • callum9999 on 05/01/2020 - 20:31

                        @Tacooo: You therefore agree that the restrictions on gay men go further that science or statistics support - so stop claiming otherwise.

                        (I'm ignoring your utterly pathetic attempt to add in caveats there - if you genuinely aren't sure whether having unprotected sex 1000 times with 1000 women is riskier than having protected sex once with a single man then you're brain dead)

                        • Tacooo on 05/01/2020 - 20:33

                          @callum9999: I defined many, many statistics in my posts as to why the restrictions are in place. I'm not going through them again just to tell you I think they're fine and shouldn't be changed.

                          • callum9999 on 05/01/2020 - 20:35
                            +1

                            @Tacooo: I don't need you to - I've demonstrated that you DON'T think they're logical, you are just prejudiced. That was my sole intention.

                            • Tacooo on 05/01/2020 - 20:41

                              @callum9999: Prejudiced towards science, how dare I!

                              given the increased prevalence of HIV etc in the gay community, I wouldn't object to more stringent restrictions than with heterosexual people

                              Sure. We could do that, reducing the already small amount of money the Red Cross has available to perform the current testing, donation drives etc just to appease a single group of people. Or they could just say "hey, let's just use logic and instead not let a group that is ~0.16% of the entire population* donate and continue to get blood that is less likely to be contaminated."

                              *if you take into account that only 1 in 30 people donate, 1/30 of 5% is ~0.16%

                              • callum9999 on 05/01/2020 - 20:59

                                @Tacooo: No… You've already accepted that the science doesn't agree with your stance…

                                What extra costs? Your posts are getting increasingly incoherent.

                                • Tacooo on 05/01/2020 - 23:16

                                  @callum9999:

                                  What extra costs? Your posts are getting increasingly incoherent.

                                  The extra costs of separating heterosexual from homosexual blood before testing. The extra costs of running further tests on them rather than just putting several into a batch and running one test. Are you really not getting this?

                                  • callum9999 on 06/01/2020 - 08:58

                                    @Tacooo: You neither need to separate the blood nor run extra tests.

                                    I am incredibly OBVIOUSLY only talking about allowing donations from homosexuals with a similar risk profile to existing donors. You even highlighted and quoted me saying I support additional restrictions on homosexuals so I have absolutely no idea why you think this (Actually I do - it's because you DON'T think).

              • dealman on 05/01/2020 - 20:18
                +1

                @Tacooo: Sensible reply.

                To demonstrate this, men can have unprotected sex with a different random woman every day of the year and be fine to donate.

                This is complete b******* The only thing you're demonstrated is your lack of knowledge on these things.

                Go and read the screening questions once before commenting again. You can even do that online.

                • callum9999 on 05/01/2020 - 21:01

                  @dealman: How about YOU go and read the screening questions.

                • diazepam on 05/01/2020 - 23:29

                  @dealman: Correct. You're screened for at risk sexual behaviour, so for all of those that are stating you can have sex with as many women as you like then donate, no you cannot, because the question specifically states if you think any of your partners "might" answer yes to. If you ever specifically ask, you'll be told that if you don't know, you should answer yes to that question, barring you to donate (I've asked them as a part of my advocacy work). You're essentially classified in the same "risk scenario" as MSM.

                  Whether or not that's the correct thing to do, remains up to your own views.

                  When I used to do advocacy work, it was one of the things the Australian Medical Student's Association tried pushing. But if you look into it deep enough, there's actually really sound evidence both ways, which makes this one of those really tricky situations. Whichever way you see it, the Red Cross / Lifeline has analysed the current evidence and has evidently implemented it as such. Thus, discussing it here is a moot point.

          • terrys on 06/01/2020 - 07:55

            @Tacooo: Citation needed. This is not a meme, it would demonstrate that this claim is anything other than a baseless biased rant.

    • Cgiclinic on 05/01/2020 - 15:11
      -2

      Sounds like discrimination!

      • rith on 05/01/2020 - 15:35
        +2

        What are you on about? The two situations are incomparable.

      • kronicmacstigator on 05/01/2020 - 15:41
        +1

        If I can take a dick I can take a needle

        • dorian_gray on 05/01/2020 - 15:49

          Love this comment

        • Tacooo on 05/01/2020 - 17:55

          Read my comment above.

      • callum9999 on 05/01/2020 - 17:22
        +3

        If I was a woman and a man came up to me and said "let me lift that for you - women are weak and you're unfit for this task" then I absolutely would argue that I'm being discriminated against…

        Of course, women are weaker ON AVERAGE then men, but that doesn't make you stronger than every woman on the planet.

    • coxymla on 05/01/2020 - 18:08
      +1

      Most people who travel to the tropics do not pick up an infectious disease.
      Most people who grew up in the UK do not have BSE.
      Most people who get a tat do not get a dangerous infection.

      The safest thing to do when dealing with blood transfusion is to exclude absolutely any of the risky populations.

      • theg00s3 on 05/01/2020 - 19:04

        The tat and travel points are far, but BSE can't be tested for, which is why people are barred.

        • coxymla on 05/01/2020 - 19:56

          HIV is also hard to test for, in the context of blood donation.

  • anamul on 05/01/2020 - 20:17

    NSW should adopt this as well. In Miranda and Liverpool, I can ask for a one-time parking ticket after a donation from the Red Cross.

  • dealman on 05/01/2020 - 20:22
    +2

    For anyone worried about getting spammed by them. They absolutely do not spam you at all.

    Yes they might call you in 3 months to book another appointment but you can tell them very clearly that you don't want to be called and they won't bother you again.

    Been an active donor for more than 10 years and I hardly ever get calls

    • Tacooo on 05/01/2020 - 20:30
      +1

      Same here (but not as long). Never once got anything except a few messages in the days/week leading up to an appointment and a call if something is wrong or a rescheduling is needed.

      That idiot that supposedly changed his number is either deficient in brain cells or lying. My money is on the latter.

  • GordonD on 05/01/2020 - 21:38
    +1

    The Red Cross's refusal to accept blood donations from men who have had sex with other men in the last year is not a relic of past attitudes. It is based on current scientific research. What that research says there is need to be concern about may not apply to all men who have sex with other men, but it applies to sufficient of them that the Red Cross and the Therapeutic Goods Administration have decided they have to put safety over not discriminating. If and when the research says it is safe to do so the policy will change.

    • Tacooo on 05/01/2020 - 23:17

      No, no, no. You're clearly wrong and they just hate gays. Isn't it obvious! /s

  • Cgiclinic on 06/01/2020 - 17:25

    I can confirm that at the end they gave me a 3 hr ($20) voucher to use at UPark. I had 2hrs to spare to go shopping at Harris Scarfe closing down sale. Picked up manchester at 50% off. If you exceed the 3hrs you just pay the difference. I had more than 1 hr to spare.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join