Live data from Hacker News

HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark

eurosurveillance.org

141–150 of 383 posts

Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark

#141
+$100k per man vaccinated in effective economic outcomes (less cancer, longer lives, less debilitating conditions) for those who needed to hear this.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2759438/

Want to boost the economy massively at next to no cost? HPV vaccinations are incredible.

Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark

#142
post #136
post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 2) there is no test to determine if a male has been exposed, although there is one for females It is incorrect. I had it tested multiple times. It is done less routinely, usually under assumption that since it is women who are mostly at risk, why bother testing men. Which is horrible mindset in anything related to epidemiology. See: - https://www.droracle.ai/articles/607248/what-methods-are-use... - https://pmc.ncb…

> It is done less routinely, usually under assumption that since it is women who are mostly at risk, why bother testing men. Which is horrible mindset in anything related to epidemiology. No. The general reason that people don't do the test for men is that DNA testing is extremely sensitive, and produces a lot of false positives for a virus that is widespread. It's also not actionable. You can't treat an asymptomatic…

so far the comments are adding more vectors to understanding the situation, but nothing that fundamentally changes the user experience

I think the most insightful thing is that there are 9 HPV variants some of which someone wouldn't have exposure to so its worthwhile to get the vaccine anyway

but other than that, the situation is the same. for men's age the utility of the vaccine is based on probability alone, as its a waste of resources to even attempt checking for prior/current exposure

Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark

#143
post #140
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is done less routinely, usually under assumption that since it is women who are mostly at risk, why bother testing men. Which is horrible mindset in anything related to epidemiology. No. The general reason that people don't do the test for men is that DNA testing is extremely sensitive, and produces a lot of false positives for a virus that is widespread. It's also not actionable. You can't treat an asymptomatic…

The claim I refuted is that there are no test for men (there are). Not sure why you want to get needlessly argumentative here, repeating things I already linked (sic!). Sure, test from penis has lower specificity and sensitivity that for cervix, but it is not binary "works or not" (as side note, just measuring from urethra is rarely enough [1]). Life is probability, and it is a huge fallacy to believe that things wor…

no reliable test for men, then

and even if it is reliable, its utility is limited

all leads to focusing solely on probability of exposure(s)

Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark

#144
post #40

I would like to add: - HPVs are extremely common: 80% of men and 90% of women will have at least one strain in their lives. Unless you plan to remain completely celibate, you are likely to contract a strain. - Sooner is better, but vaccination can be done at any age. Guidelines often lag behind, but vaccination makes sense even if you are currently HPV-positive. While it won't clear an existing infection, it protects…

[flagged]

You're replying on a post that shows a literal >16x reduction in prevalence, with "just don't be a slut, worked for thousands of years".

I'd invite you to look up the prevalence of STDs during the most puritanical eras and places, maybe you'd change that stupid take.

Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark

#145
post #131
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you're married? Does it still make sense, if you know you won't ever be sleeping with a new partner?

A question for your doctor and your partner (and of course, you can read the data in the link I posted above and use that to influence your conversation and decision!) I'm not being avoidant here -- medical decisions are always subjective and multi-factor, and I can't begin to tell you what you should do. (But I also sincerely believe that propagandists try to reduce nuanced data to talking points, which is equally w…

I usually am pro vaccine. But the HPV vaccine discussion seems politicized to me. As someone who is monogamous and over fifty, I had trouble following the risk vs reward discussion. The CDC says it is only recommended for young adults so I interpret that for my case the answer is negative.

Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark

#146

+$100k per man vaccinated in effective economic outcomes (less cancer, longer lives, less debilitating conditions) for those who needed to hear this. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2759438/ Want to boost the economy massively at next to no cost? HPV vaccinations are incredible.

I don't think that's what the summary is saying.

My reading of the following is that the cost of each additional quality adjusted life year would be over $100,000, rather than that each vaccination prompts $100k in economic value

> Including preadolescent boys in a routine vaccination programme for preadolescent girls resulted in higher costs and benefits and generally had cost effectiveness ratios that exceeded $100 000 per QALY across a range of HPV related outcomes, scenarios for cervical cancer screening, and assumptions of vaccine efficacy and duration

Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark

#147
post #40

I would like to add: - HPVs are extremely common: 80% of men and 90% of women will have at least one strain in their lives. Unless you plan to remain completely celibate, you are likely to contract a strain. - Sooner is better, but vaccination can be done at any age. Guidelines often lag behind, but vaccination makes sense even if you are currently HPV-positive. While it won't clear an existing infection, it protects…

[flagged]

Venereal diseases have been a significant cause of human mortality for ages. The first outbreak of Syphilis in Europe killed ~7% of the population. The only thing that broke up that state of affairs was the advent of antibiotics.

Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark

#148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> HPVs are extremely common: 80% of men and 90% of women will have at least one strain in their lives. This statistic seems to be used by some people to avoid the vaccine - they figure they've already had it at some point. The biggest problem with that logic is that not all strains are as dangerous and they probably have not contracted 16 or 18 specifically. The other problem is there's still a good number of people…

> This statistic seems to be used by some people to avoid the vaccine The FDA itself restricted access to the vaccine on the basis of age. Given that virions aren't even involved in the production process, its safety should have been deemed good enough for the entire population early on.

The reason it's not recommended for all ages is money. Not safety concerns.

Same reason you can't get Shingrix under a certain age.

Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark

#149
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I, a male, got vaccinated with the Gardasil 9 vaccine shortly before turning 40. Convincing my doctor to prescribe it wasn't terribly difficult, I told them a few things about my sexual history and explained some of my sexual plans, and that was that. I wish more people would get vaccinated.

I feel very uncomfortable trying to talk my doctor into doing something they don't recommend. I know too many people who buy into fake medical stuff. Why is this different? Why is pestering a doctor to give me a medicine they don't recommend a good idea?

Doctors don't have the time or capacity to know their patients well enough to make personalized recommendations in most cases. If you show up with symptoms of X they can recommend Y and will probably ask you whether you have Z which can impact the treatment. But virtually no doctor is going to ring you up proactively and say "hey, I noticed you haven't had a HPV vaccine yet, and I think it might make sense for you because I know this and that about your risk profile".

Doctors are not all knowing, infallible oracles. They are human beings you can have a conversation with about your health. If you think something makes sense for you, you can run it past them. No one is suggesting randomly asking doctors to prescribe random shit.

Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark

#150
Absolutely completely off the topic at hand here, but it seems like the bot and troll level goes up a lot on topics like this. A lot of people use HN data for training data, stats analysis, etc. Anyone out there figure out some good tools for trying to detect the bots in a thread like this? There are probably some good tells with throw-away accounts, account age, etc etc. In a world where misinformation is algorithmically generated and comments are a prime way that happens getting tools that can detect it is important. Hmm if there are good tools I wonder if they could be built into a plugin somehow.
Post reply on HN