Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

eurosurveillance.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 383 posts

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

#221

Post by arjie »

slackerIII wrote: post #216
arjie wrote: post #166

I don’t get it. Everyone online gives advice like “Ask your doctor to get the vaccine even if you’re male” but the pharmacies here in SF refused to give it to me. They said that it’s not indicated for a 35+ yo male. So I get the theory of this thing. But has anyone actually tried this? Finally I got OneMedical to prescribe it for me for some $1.2k at which point I decided I’ll just get it abroad during some planned t…

Just sign up for it at costco online.

Oh, that's much less: $300/dose and there's 3 doses. So that's $900 roughly. Thank you.

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

#222

Post by devinplatt »

arjie wrote: post #166

I don’t get it. Everyone online gives advice like “Ask your doctor to get the vaccine even if you’re male” but the pharmacies here in SF refused to give it to me. They said that it’s not indicated for a 35+ yo male. So I get the theory of this thing. But has anyone actually tried this? Finally I got OneMedical to prescribe it for me for some $1.2k at which point I decided I’ll just get it abroad during some planned t…

Try Planned Parenthood.

Over a decade ago I tried getting the HPV vaccine in my early 20s, but the doctor told me it wasn't recommended for men and that insurance won't cover it. I was young and didn't have the money to pay out of pocket.

I went to Planned Parenthood and got the vaccine last year. At some point they changed the recommendation to men under 45 now and I got all 3 shots free.

Honestly, though I'm glad to have finally got the vaccine it's been a pretty frustrating experience.

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

#223

Post by loeg »

phkahler wrote: post #86
stared wrote: 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…

>> 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…

I mostly hear this from healthcare-fatalists arguing against people in their 40s+ getting the vaccine later in life.

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

#224

Post by stefantalpalaru »

stared wrote: 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…

[dead]

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

#225

Post by loeg »

CydeWeys wrote: post #199
bboygravity wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Beg for forgiveness, don't ask permission. I got Shingrix when I was under the age of 40, and at no cost to myself even, simply by scheduling a Shingrix vaccine at CVS. It wasn't until I went back for the booster shot months later that the nurse was like "Wait, aren't you too young for this?", but they nevertheless gave me the second dose to complete the vaccine course. You can just so things.

I was unable to get a first dose just by asking the pharmacy -- they were happy to enforce the arbitrary 50 year age rule. But my PCP was happy to just prescribe it off-label. Do it; shingles is terrible and there's no reason to suffer it under 50.

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

#226

Post by loeg »

anjel wrote: post #170
lotsofpulp wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would happily pay for Shingrix.

Prepare your happy for a very profit-laden high three-figure bill.

Medium 3-figure at most. $400-600 for the full two-dose series.

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

#227

Post by arjie »

devinplatt wrote: post #222
arjie wrote: post #166

I don’t get it. Everyone online gives advice like “Ask your doctor to get the vaccine even if you’re male” but the pharmacies here in SF refused to give it to me. They said that it’s not indicated for a 35+ yo male. So I get the theory of this thing. But has anyone actually tried this? Finally I got OneMedical to prescribe it for me for some $1.2k at which point I decided I’ll just get it abroad during some planned t…

Try Planned Parenthood. Over a decade ago I tried getting the HPV vaccine in my early 20s, but the doctor told me it wasn't recommended for men and that insurance won't cover it. I was young and didn't have the money to pay out of pocket. I went to Planned Parenthood and got the vaccine last year. At some point they changed the recommendation to men under 45 now and I got all 3 shots free. Honestly, though I'm glad t…

Oh that's interesting. Thank you. I have a friend who works there as a provider. I should be able to check before going.

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

#228

Post by andrepd »

miroljub wrote: post #162
andrepd wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

Chastity is 100% effective at preventing STDs exactly like living in a plastic bubble is 100% effective at preventing the flu (incidentally, it's also 100% effective at preventing humanity from existing within 80 years...). The fact that people throughout history, even in the most repressive times when "adulterers" were stoned or forced to marry rapists, have had much higher rates of STDs than we do today, shows that reality, rather than an abstract ideal case, is what matters in terms of public health.

Put another way: a "slut" practicing safe sex today will have fewer chances to contract an STD than a regular married woman in Victorian times.

> stupid man without any arguments

Seriously? Your argument is "damn those slut whores" and you're pretending to have an intellectual high ground...? Have a good weekend.

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

#229

Post by jacquesm »

terminalshort wrote: post #215
jacquesm wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You really need to think through the implications and consequences of censorship laws before advocating for them. Maybe I did? It is possible that we just disagree on this. Clearly misinformation about medical stuff is so damaging that many places have found it necessary to have laws on the books. I'm just elevating this from a misdemeanor to an actual crime based on the outcomes.

What if 25 years ago I spoke out against opiods as highly addictive and dangerous. Remember, this was in contradiction to the scientific consensus at the time that modern opioids were not that addictive. A reasonable person could have said at the time that my claims were false and posed a danger to people who were in pain and needed this medication. In hindsight it's obvious that the scientific consensus was catastro…

If you did you'd have been in very good company because the world over the scientific consensus was that opioids were addictive.

That scientific consensus you are alluding to is not what you claim it was.

Finally, we're talking about celebrities without any qualification whatsoever spreading utter nonsense causing real harm, you can look at that in isolation and compare it to you making that statement out of an abundance of caution regarding something where there is no downside. The two simply are not equivalent. Free speech absolutists always pull the same trick, aiming to refuse an obvious wrong in order to defend their bastion while forgetting that there isn't a black-or-white at all, you can have some reasonable limits on what people can and can not do and in the age of 'influencers' with global reach the danger is much more prevalent than it used to be.

Free speech is a great good, but it is not the greatest good.

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

#230

Post by icegreentea2 »

andrewmcwatters wrote: post #161

The only thing I've never understood about the HPV vaccination is that for some reason after a certain age as an adult in the United States, no primary care provider appears to recommend you get it in addition to your regular vaccination schedule. Is the idea that you're married and have a single partner and the risk factor has dropped below a certain percentage of the population where there's little reason to recomm…

Here's the CDC's most recent recommendations (from 2019) https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6832a3.htm

The justification for 27-45 year olds heavily references a meeting. Based on time, author and title, I think either https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/78082/cdc_78082_DS1.pdf or https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10395540/ should be a fair summary of the meeting (I hope...).

I don't really have time to read it all, but the basic idea is as you said - the cost-benefit ratio is off. Basically expanding from something like the current case, to vaccinating up to 45 year old will avert an extra 21k cases of cancer (compared to the base case of 1.4 million) - so about an extra 1.5% cases averted, while the direct vaccination costs are estimated to increase from 44 billion to 57 billion (+29%).

The current guidance says "do not recommend" plus "consult your doctor". You should read that as "blanket vaccination as public policy is cost inefficient in that age range" not "you as a 45 year old should not get the vaccine categorically".

Post reply on HN