So that wouldn't work, would it? Women who have sex with a high-risk population (if they know about it) also have a 12 month ban at least. High risk sexual behavior for women is defined as having sex with high-risk partners or partners with unknown risk factors rather than having unprotected sex.
If testing were perfect, we wouldn't have to try to exclude high-risk populations.
Sadly, one's personal risk is less related to one's personal sexual practices, unless those sexual practices are extremely conservative, than the risk of the persons with whom one has sex. If one is having sex with someone and one doesn't know, the safe thing is to assume the other person is high-risk and modify exposure accordingly. But many persons get infected from having sex with long-term partners.
There would literally be no risk of passing HIV through the blood supply through anal sex if we didn't have HIV in the population in the first place!
While some of your suggestions are good, I think, the high rate of self-delusion might not make them work as logically expected.
For instance, several surveys of men in long-term relationships with other men showed a higher rate of HIV infection, rather than lower. This was confounding.
The reason why the population risk predominates in this equation is simple. If you are or have been a sex worker, an illegal drug user, or a person who normally has sex with other persons in a population with a high rate of HIV infection, your personal risk is much higher than the norm.
I know this stuff is dry, but here is a recent article about risk in populations:
http://rollingout.com/2016/05/06/cdc-expert-states-hiv-rate-in-atlanta-as-bad-as-african-countries/
Note that risk varies by locale and subpopulation. The reason it does is not so much a difference in sexual practices (though that certainly changes individual risk), but the degree of infection within the area/subpopulation. If this continues, the screening procedures may have to change. Right now the hope is that PrEP and education will make a big dent:
1) People living in Washington, D.C. (1 in 13), Maryland (1 in 49), Georgia (1 in 51), Florida (1 in 54), Louisiana (1 in 56) and other parts of the region the CDC defines as the South had the highest risk.
2) Men who have sex with men had a 1 in 6 risk while heterosexual men had a 1 in 473 risk.
The main reason that MSM is different than MSW is that, by definition, heterosexual men are sleeping with a population with a much lower average risk. It's not that hets always use condoms. It is true that condomless receptive anal sex with an HIV-infected person carries the highest risk of infection, but men do contract HIV by condomless vaginal sex with infected women. Approximately 1 in 5 MSM are infected with HIV. A relatively low-risk sexual life for a man who has sex with other men carries a much higher risk of infection (in this country) than a relatively low-risk sexual life for a man who has sex with women.
But look at DC. One in thirteen is the calculated lifetime risk ratio. There the rate of infection got high enough that many women in DC have contracted it from their partners, and some women are infecting their partners. So the infection rate in some of the high-risk areas is much higher than average in heterosexuals compared to the US in total.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/2016/croi-2016.html#Graphics2
https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/factsheets/cdc-hiv-aa-508.pdf
The impossibility of defining a valid risk filter that would work for the entire population based purely on individual sexual practices should be evident to anyone who knows the stats.
= new reply since forum marked as read
